


THE MINNESOTA 
LEGISLATURE 



of 1913 

BY 

C« J* BUELJL 




Class _______ 

Book 

OopightN? 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIK 



The Minnesota Legislature 



of 1913 



-BY 




C. J. BUELL 

Author of 

"The Currency Question" 

"Industrial Depressions, their Cause and Cure' 

"Monopolies and Trusts" 

"Our Indebtedness to the Arabs" 



Copyright by C. J. BUELL 

1540 Laurel Avenue 
St. Paul, Minn. 

1914 






m 19 1914 

©CI.A374819 



COMMENDATORY FORE WORD. 
The manuscript for this book has been prepared by 
C. J. Buell, who gave his entire time, during the legis- 
lative sessions of 1913, to a careful study of the record 
of each member of both House and Senate and a thorough 
analysis of all important measures. 

Mr. Buell has wisely left the record of each member 
to speak for itself. 

We know Mr. Buell to be honest, independent and 
fearless, and believe he has produced a History of the 
Legislature of 1913 that every citizen can read with profit. 
(Signed) Hugh T. Halbert 5 
Louis Nash, 
T. T. Hudson, 
Elwood S. Corser. 



The Minnesota Legislature of Wi3 



PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR. 

This book is the third in the series of histories of 
"The Legislature of Minnesota." 

The first volume, "The Legislature of 1909," was pub- 
lished under the auspices of the Minnesota Citizen League, 
an organization founded in November, 1908, by the late 
Sidney M. Owen and a number of other citizens of Minne- 
sota, who firmly believed that if the people of the state 
could know the influences that elected the members of our 
legislatures, the forces and motives that determined their 
official acts, the methods employed in committee and on 
the floor of the House and Senate, — in short, if the people 
could know the inside workings of the legislature and 
just how each Senator and Representative voted on all vital 
measures, then it would be easy to weed out those who 
were corrupt, or stupid or inefficient, and send to represent 
the people men who are honest, intelligent and progres- 
sive — men who could neither be bought nor fooled. 

Following these lines, the secretary of the League, 
Mr. Lynn Haines, prepared and published a history of the 
Legislature of 1909, giving a clear analysis of all impor- 
tant measures, showing the forces that were at work to 
prevent good and secure bad legislation, and adding to it 
an accurate record of each member of the House and 
Senate, setting forth just how he had voted at roll call. 

This book created a sensation. It showed beyond a 
question that many professed representatives of the people 
were really representatives of the special interests that 
rob the people through forms of law. 

The publicity thus secured resulted directly in the 
retirement or defeat of practically every member of the 
old special interest serving political gang that had con- 
trolled the legislature for many years. Some retired 
voluntarily through fear of defeat, some were dropped at 
primaries and others defeated at general election. 

This publicity was very useful in another direction. 
It helped to clarrify the ideas and strengthen the backbone 
of many good members who had worked faithfully, but 
at great disadvantage. It made it easier for the people 
to know who had been faithful and who had failed. 

And so by the two processes of weeding out the bad 
and helping the faithful, the legislature of 1911 was a 
great improvement over its predecessor of 1909. 

But much was yet to be done. The special interests 
were very active; and though they failed to get much 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



bad legislation, they were able to prevent many of the 
best and most progressive measures from passing. 

Again in 1911 Mr. Haines published a fearless and 
vigorous analysis of the work of both houses, containing 
a full record of each member. The people were eager for 
the information. About twenty thousand were circulated. 
Many objectionable members fell by the wayside. The 
best and most progressive House of Representatives in 
the history of the state was elected in 1912. It was honestly 
and efficiently organized and accomplished much. 

The Senate was the same in personnel, as in 1911, but 
some of the members had seen a light, and better results 
were reached. 

But there is more work to be done. There are still 
left senators and representatives who ought to be de- 
feated, and others who should be helped to return and 
strengthened for good work. 

For these reasons this book is published. 

C. J. Buell. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 

Commendatory Foreword 5 

Author's Preface 6 

Introductory 10 

Chapter I. 

The Speakership 13 

Chapter II. 

How Shall Committees Be Appointed. 15 

Chapter III. 

Peoples' Power Legislation 19 

1. Equal Suffrage for Women 19 

2. Initiative and Referendum 24 

3. The Recall 29 

Chapter IV. 

Election Laws 31 

Chapter V. 

Reapportionment 36 

Chapter VI. 

Local Self Government 41 

1. Public Utilities 42 

2. The State Utility Commission Bill 43 

3. The Nolan Bill 46 

4. The Veto 46 

5. A Comparison — The Governor's Bill and the 

Nolan Bill 46 

6. The Telephone Bill and Its Veto 49 

7. The Experience of Wisconsin 50 

Chapter VII. 

The Cashman Anti-Discrimination Bill 52 

Chapter VIII. 

Our Mineral Resource and the Tonnage Tax 57 

Chapter IX. 

Temperance and Moral Measures 61 

1. County Option 62 

Nelson's Part 63 

2. The Road House Bill 64 

3. Fourth Class City Bill 65 

4. The Injunction and Abatement Bill 65 

Chapter X. 

The Public Domain 68 

Public Lands 69 

Chapter XI. 

Some Attempts That Failed 70 

1. The Southwick Marriage Bill 70 

2. Making Artificial Criminals 72 

The St. Car Transfer Bill 72 

3. Sterilizing Criminals and Others 75 

Chapter XII. 

Other Important Legislation 77 

Chapter XIII. 

The Records of the Members 79 

Representatives 80 

Senators 96 

Appendix 

I and II. The Grain Reports 103 

III. Brewery Controled Saloons 110 



10 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

INTRODUCTORY. 

There are always two opposing forces at work in 
every organized society. One is progressive the other 
standpat or reactionary. One force is constantly striving 
for improvement; the other is either resisting improvement 
and progress or moving backward. One of these forces 
is restless, dissatisfied with things as they are; the other 
sits with folded hands and wonders what all the fuss is 
about. One may be called radical, if we use the word 
radical in its true sense, meaning to go to the root of 
things; the other is conservative, in an objectionable sense. 
It would conserve all that is old, no matter how rotten. 
True radicalism is the best conservatism. It keeps all 
that is good, but cuts out the dead timber. 

In society, in church, in school, in government, in all 
the varied forms of industry, in short, in all human affairs, 
these two forces must work through men. Hence we have 
men who are progressive — ever pushing onward — always 
striving for improvement — men with visions of better 
things, with hope in their hearts, with fire in their blood, 
determined, enthusiastic, resistless. These are the world 
makers. On the other hand we have men who resist all 
improvement; who are satisfied with things as they are; 
who are like breaks on the wheels of progress, if indeed 
they do not turn the wheels backward. 

Perhaps this is natural, — perhaps both kinds of men 
are needed; but I don't think the reactionaries should be 
given any special or law-created advantages. And isn't 
it a good thing that men die? Think how impossible 
progress would be if all the old fossils kept right on liv- 
ing! 

But the forces of nature always make for progress. 
Old wrongs become unbearable and are finally righted. 
Not that the fundamental principles of democracy change, 
but that men come to see new applications of those prin- 
ciples. The great fundamental doctrine that governments 
are instituted among men to secure "Equal opportunity to 
all," never changes; but our conception of what is equal 
opportunity does change; and it is the all important busi- 
ness of legislators to first discover the natural laws that 
govern the evolution of society and then make their man- 
made statutes conform thereto. 

And this is the true criterion by which to judge of 
man-made statutes: Do they secure greater equality of 
opportunity among the men and women who make up 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 11 

society? Do they secure the greatest personal liberty, 
bounded only by the equal liberty of all others? Do they 
establish and maintain the greatest possible degree of 
self government for each social unit — the greatest free- 
dom to manage their local affairs in their own way? Do 
the statutes of the state meddle the least possible with 
the private affairs of men and women, and with the local 
affairs of village or city, township or county? Do these 
statutes furnish the people with the simplest and most 
efficient tools by which to govern themselves; by which 
to choose their public servants ; by which to make or amend 
the laws and constitutions under which they must live 
and labor? 

In the following chapters the author will be guided by 
this principle in attempting to judge of the merits of 
measures and the acts and motives of men. 




SPEAKER HENRY RINES 
Who organized the House committees for effective pro- 
gressive legislation. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 13 

CHAPTER I. 
THE SPEAKERSHIP. 

Very soon after the election of Nov. 5, 1912, it be- 
came apparent that the people had chosen to the lower 
house of the legislature of Minnesota a substantial ma- 
jority of men who believed more or less firmly in the 
fundamental principles of democracy. Most of these men 
came to the legislature labeled as Republicans. Others 
called themselves Democrats. There was one called a 
Socialist and one a Prohibitionist. Whether these men 
were truly democratic or not must be determined by their 
legislative acts; and the first test by which we can be- 
gin to form an opinion was the way they lined up on the 
speakership. There were six candidates for speaker who 
appealed to the progressive element among the Repub- 
licans: W. I. Nolan of Hennepin, Henry Rines of Kena- 
bec, N. J. Holmberg of Renville, Thomas Frankson of Fill- 
more, J. T. Johnson of Otter Tail, and T. T. Ofsthun of 
Pope. All these men had been in the legislature before, 
and their work had commanded the respect and confi- 
dence of the people of the state. With a degree of unsel- 
fishness seldom witnessed among those who seek political 
preferment these six men consulted and entered into an 
agreement to unite in support of the one who should show 
the greatest strength in a meeting of progressive mem- 
bers. In that meeting Henry Rines, after several ballots, 
was plainly the choice of the majority of those present, 
and all the rest pledged themselves to do all they could 
to secure his election. Other pledges of support began 
to come in and by December 3rd, enough members had 
pledged themselves to Mr. Rines to make his election to 
the speakership certain. 

Garfield W. Brown of McLeod, P. H. McGarry of Cass 
and Ernest Lundeen of Hennepin, who had been willing 
to receive the votes of those opposed to Mr. Rines, now 
withdrew from the contest, and acknowledged their de- 
feat. In this contest the twenty members who were 
elected as Democrats took no part. Sixteen of them met 
in St. Paul Nov. 26, and decided to hold aloof and allow 
the Speakership to be determined by the Republican mem- 
bers. This action is worthy of commendation, for as long 
as party is recognized at all in our legislature, parties 
should stand by themselves in the determination of all 
party matters. It is to be hoped that the time is near 
when men will be chosen for public positions in state and 
city, village and county, upon their honesty and fitness 
instead of how they line up on national issues that have 
no necessary relation to state and local affairs. Of course 
real democracy is fundamental, and he who is imbued with 
that spirit will always be allied on that side regardless of 
the party label he wears. 

At the opening of the legislative session Mr. Rines 
was elected speaker by one hundred one (101) affirmative 
votes to nineteen (19) for Frank Minette of Stearns Co. 
One Democrat, Vasaly of Morrison County, voted for Rines, 
explaining that he regarded party of no consequence in 
this matter and was fully satisfied with Mr. Rines. 




LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR BURNQUIST 

Who organized the Senate committees for the best possible 

progressive results. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 15 

CHAPTER II. 
HOW SHALL COMMITTEES BE APPOINTED? 

Shall legislative committees be appointed by the 
Speaker of the House and the presiding officer of the Sen- 
ate, or by the members of each body themselves through 
a Committee on Committees, or by some other device 
which the house in question shall provide? 

Your answer to this question will depend largely on 
your point of view. 

What is the object of organizing a legislative body at 
all? Why do we have committees? 

There can be but one honest purpose in the organi- 
zation of any legislative body, and that is to so frame the 
committees as to best carry out the will of the people, 
and secure such statutes as the people demand. 

The means by which this shall be done is not of vital 
importance, so only that all are treated fairly and the 
work done effectively. 

The Merits of and Objections to a Committee on Com- 
mittees. 

The only merit ever claimed for organization through 
a committee on committees is that it would be more demo- 
cratic, — more likely to represent the will of the people. 

Let us see. 

Most of the proposals for a committee on committees 
were coupled with the further proposal that such com- 
mittee should be composed of nine members, one from 
each congressional district, to be chosen by the members 
elect from such congressional district. 

Now, for legislative purposes, the state is a unit, not 
nine unites. It would be possible, and quite proable, that 
the state as a whole might be strongly committed to 
progressive legislation, and yet a majority of the nine 
districts be reactionary. 

Concentration of responsibility is a fundamental prin- 
ciple of all government. 

Any committee on committees would fix responsi- 
bility nowhere. 

A Speaker elected by the whole house can be held re- 
sponsible. If the Speaker is in full harmony with the 
wishes of the people, as was undoubtedly the case with 
Mr. Rines, he will be better fitted to do this work, because 
he will have given more careful thought to the questions 
at issue, and he will waste less time. 

In the Senate. 

In the case of the Senate there is a slight difference. 
The Constitution vests all legislative power in the House 
and Senate. The Lieutenant Governor is. no part of the 
Legislative power. 

It might therefore seem that there is no reason m 
the nature of things why the Lieutenant Governor should 
appoint the Senate committees. But, in the state of Min- 
nesota, it has always been the custom, except in one case, 
for the Senate to concede to the Lieutenant Governor the 



16 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

power of appointing committees; and the people elect him 
with this understanding. In the election of 1912 the peo- 
ple of Minnesota had voted overwhelmingly in favor of 
strong, constructive, progressive policies, and had elected 
to the office of Lieutenant Governor J. A. A. Burnquist, 
a man known to be fully in sympathy with those policies. 
It was therefore the general feeling that the old custom 
should not be disturbed. 

However, Senator F. A. Duxbury of Houston County 
and Senator George H. Sullivan of Washington County, 
who had always heretofore been the champions of privi- 
lege and standpattism, now came forward as advanced 
progressives, and demanded that the committees be taken 
away from the Lieutenant Governor and appointed by the 
Senate itself. This matter had been fully exploited in 
the newspapers for more than a week before the opening 
of the session; and it had been loudly proclaimed that the 
Democratic members of the Senate would unite, almost 
solidly, with the reactionary Republicans to overthrow the 
time-honored custom and take the committees away from 
Burnquist. Sullivan and Duxbury made long and very 
profound arguments in favor of their plan. The progres- 
sive element of the Senate made no word of reply. When 
the vote was finally taken, the reactionaries were able to 
muster only sixteen votes, divided as follows: 

Republicans — Anderson, Carpenter, Cooke, Dunn, Dux- 
bury, Gunn, Murray, Stebbins, Geo. H. Sullivan, and Wil- 
son (ten). 

Democrats — Coller, Donaldson, Johnson, C. D., Poehler, 
Weis, and Works, (six). 

General Wilson explained that if his vote had been 
necessary to defeat the proposition, he would have voted 
the other way. Anderson and Donaldson declared that 
they had advocated the principle so long and so fully 
before their people that they could not vote otherwise than 
as they did. Johnston of Todd was in his seat but did 
not vote. Schaller was not in the Senate at all that day. 

Evidently the Senators did not regard this as an op- 
portune time to make the change, especially as the same 
Senate two years before had followed the old established 
custom. And perhaps their feeling was fairly well voiced 
by one senator who remarked, "When the Devil goes to 
preaching religion, I am always suspicious." 

The Contest in the House. 

The situation in the House was interesting. Ernest 
Lundeen of Minneapolis made a most vigorous fight for 
a committee on committees, but failed to secure any con- 
siderable support. He declared that his plan was vital 
and that no member who stood for real progressive poli- 
cies could oppose it; but about all the real progressives 
were of a different opinion. A Committee on Committees 
would probably have required more than a week to do 
their work, and then could hardly have made as good and 
effective working committees as were those made by the 
Speaker. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 17 

On roll call Mr. Lundeen's motion received only seven 
votes, as follows: Lydiard, Sawyer, Lundeen, Dwyer, 
Thielen of Hennepin, Barten of Scott, and P. A. Peterson 
of Freeborn. 

We need not question the honesty of either side to 
this controversy. Each man sees the case from his own 
point of view. And the plan proposed by each must be 
judged by the results it brings. My own conviction is 
that any legislative body that really desires to serve the 
people will be able to do so effectively, no matter which 
method they employ, and that they will change their meth- 
ods as their needs require. 

The amount of good legislation secured and the small 
number of bad laws enacted is sufficient answer to those 
who would make a vital question of the plan of organi- 
zation. The whole question must hinge upon the honesty 
and intelligence of the members and those to whom the 
appointment of committees is entrusted. 

Both houses were honestly organized for effective 
work. The committees were framed to produce results, and 
good results were had. 

A very good illustration of the difference between the 
house in 1913 and 1911 may be found in the following com- 
parative table of expenses of the two sessions: 

Mr. Conley from the committee on Legislative Ex- 
penses makes the following report, showing the total ex- 
penses for the session of 1913 and also a comparative 
statement of similar expenses for the session of 1911. 

ARTICLES 1911 1913 DIFFERENCE 

Knives $1,046.00 None $1,046.00 

Fountain pens.... 1,175.60 None 1,175.60 

Scissors 257.50 None 257.50 

Writing- paper . . . 4,699.00 $993.32 3,705.68 

Carbon paper 1,108.10 135.86 984.24 

Typewriter paper 1,315.95 177.16 1,038.79 
Blank books and 

forms 954.00 217.00 737.00 

Paper knives 100.00 None 100.00 

Lawbooks 932.50 191.00 741.50 

Pocket manuals . . 1.840.00 428.34 1,411.66 

Postage 243.50 100.00 143.50 

Senate and House 

files 1,122.00 574.55 547.45 

Other supplies, etc. 3,597.61 1,167.38 2,430.23 

Sundry items 2,198.37 1,323.65 874.72 

Furniture 1,849.00 216.00 1,633.00 

Fixtures 331.00 521.74 $190.74 

Drainage Invest. 

Com 2.695.82 None 2,695.82 

Grain Invest. Com. 292.74 2,628.90 2,336.16 
Public Acts, and 

Expend 240.00 1,079.26 839.26 

Game and Fish 

Com. Trips 353.85 None 353.85 

State Hospital Com. 346.52 62.39 284 13 
Other Com. Trips. 753.56 907.20 153 64 
Election Contests. 751.00 1,404.50 653 50 
Employe's Salaries 43,008.00 34,588.50 8,419.50 
Members' Salaries. 120,000.00 120,000.00 
Mileage to mem- 
bers 3,846.85 3,864.25 17.40 

$194,958.47 $170,570.00 $24,388.47 $4,190.70 



18 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

The so-called supply account shows a de- 
crease of $15,193.87 over 

the 1911 session. 

Furniture and fixtures 1,442.26 

Employee's salaries 8,419.50 

Visiting committee 484.36 



$25,539.99 
The 1913 session expended more money on investi- 
gation than did the 1911 session, thus leaving the net sav- 
ing of the 1913 session over that of 1911, $24,388.47. 
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April, 1913. 

Kerry Conley. 

Changes in the Rules. 

Another strong indication that the House was organ- 
ized by Mr. Rines in the interest of the entire people is 
to be found in the following list of important changes in 
the rules, prepared by W. I. Nolan, Chairman of the Rules 
Committee : 

1. Reduced by 20 days the time during which bills 
could be introduced. 

2. Special order made by a majority vote upon one 
day notice. 

3. Reduced the number of committees and employees, 
(employees reduced one-third). 

4. Made the Committee on Legislative Expenses an 
effective committee with a complete check on every ex- 
penditure, thus reducing the expenses of the House by 
more than $24,000. 

5. Required a permanent record of the Committee on 
Claims. 

6. Required a regular schedule of committee meet- 
ings, thus preventing dilatory tactics on the part of com- 
mit.tee chairmen. 

7. Required each committee to keep a record of its 
meetings and proceedings, with a record of the vote of 
committee members, this vote to be part of the report to 
the House. The purpose of this rule was to give publicity 
to committee actions. 

8. Limited the time a committee could hold a bill to 
15 days. At the end of the 15-day period any member 
could demand the return of the bill to the House. 

9. No leave of absence could be granted any commit- 
tee to visit state institutions unless a request was made to 
the House in writing, stating the institution to be visited. 
The number that could be excused for this purpose was 
limited to three members. 

This rule did away with the old time junkets. 

Many other changes were made making the work of 
the House more efficient and providing a more complete 
record of bills and the action taken thereon. 

The purpose of the changes was to give publicity to 
every action of the House and make the old-time methods 
of preventing legislation impossible. 



The Minnesota Legislature of WIS 



19 



CHAPTER III. 
PEOPLE'S POWER LEGISLATION. 

Governments derive all just powers from the con- 
sent of the governed. This is conceded by all to be the 
first and most vital principle of democracy. It therefore 
follows that the machinery by which the people are to 
make and amend their constitutions and statutes, should 
be as simple and as easy to work as possible. This is the 
reason why such devices as the Initiative, Referendum, Re- 
call, Direct Primaries, Preferential voting, Popular Elec- 
tion, etc., have come to be so insistenly demanded by the 
people. And that these means of popular government are 
soon to be made a part of the fundamental law in all 
parts of our country, there can be no doubt. In some 
form they are now in force in more than one-third of the 
states, and everywhere the people are demanding them. 
The English system of responsible government, with an 
appeal to the country in every crisis, is a different method 
of asserting the same principle. 

Equal Suffrage for Women. 

Women are about one-half of the governed. That half 
has as much right to a voice in government as has the 
other half; and that right should no longer be denied. 
Any one who has not yet grasped this principle, has some- 
thing yet to learn in the school of democracy. 

Senator Sageng's bill for a constitutional amendment 
to remove the discrimination against women which now de- 
prives them of their right to vote came up for discussion 
on special order at 11:30 A. M., Jan. 28, 1913. Senators 
Haycraft, Boyle, Sageng and Dwinnel made strong pleas 
that the men of Minnesota be permitted to vote upon this 
question, for it it by the men that this question must be 
settled. Senators Hackney and Duxbury spoke against 
submitting the question to the men of the state. The roll 
was called Avith the following result. 

To permit the men to vote: 



Bedford 


Elwell 


Odell 


Benson 


Fosseen 


Peterson 


Boyle 


Froshaug 


Putnam 


Cashman 


Gunderson 


Rustad 


Clague 


Hanson 


Sageng 


Cook, C. F. 


Haycraft 


Saugstad 


Dale 


Johnson, V. L. 


Shaller 


Denegre 


Lende 


Sundberg 


Duea 


Moonan 


Thoe 


Dwinnell 


Nelson 


Wilson 


Against 


permitting the men to 


vote: 


Ahmann 


Hackney 


Poehler 


Anderson 


Handlan 


Pugh 


Carpenter 


Johnson, C. D. 


Rockne 


Cheadle 


Johnston 


Stebbins 


Coller 


Klein 


Sullivan, G. H 


Cooke, L. 0. 


L'Herault 


Sullivan, J. D. 


Donaldson 


McGrath 


Swanson 


Dunn 


Marden 


Van Hoven 


Duxbury 


Murray 


Wallace 


Glotzbach 


Olson 


Weis 


Gunn 


Pauly 


Works 



20 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

Two years ago Cheadle, Duxbury, Olson and C. D. 
Johnson voted to submit the question to the male voters 
of the state, but this time changed front. 

This year the women gained four votes as follows: 
Clague Duea 

Dwinnell Fosseen 

So the women's cause failed again by just tivo votes. 

The following editorial from the St. Paul Daily News 
voiced the feeling of very many voters: 
"HOW DO MINNESOTA MEN LIKE THEIR MUZZLE? 

This suffrage business isn't over yet. 

The fight has only just begun. Tuesday's vote in the 
senate was only a skirmish. 

It was only a skirmish because the bill for submission 
is still to come before the house and because it is not to 
be believed that the senate will persist in applying the 
muzzle to the men voters of Minnesota. 

In effect the senate has said to the MEN voters: 

'We know that you are interested in this great ques- 
tion of equal suffrage — 

'BUT WE REFUSE TO LET YOU VOTE ON IT.' 

Thirty-three members of the senate have thus at- 
tempted to apply the muzzle to the men voters of the 
state. 

Do they believe they are wiser than all the present 
voters? 

Or are they afraid to trust their political futures to a 
mixed ballot of ALL CITIZENS? 

Neither of these reasons does them much credit. 

No, it is only the first skirmish. Suffrage is too big 
a question to be laid away by one close vote in but one 
body of the legislature. 

Sober second thought may yet save the senate from 
permanent commitment to a monstrous blunder. 

Let the House show the way." 

— The Editor, St. Paul Daily News. 

In the house, the equal suffrage amendment came up 
on special order, Tuesday morning, February 11. 

Representative Adolph Larson of Pine County, the 
author of the bill, made a brief, plain statement of the 
purpose of the bill: "All that we ask is that this question 
be referred to the voters of the state. Let them decide it. 
Surely you are not afraid to trust the men to vote on this 
question. Are we so much wiser than those who sent us 
here, that we must sit in judgment over them? 

Holmberg, Campbell, Southwick, Nolan, Teigen, Knee- 
land, Conley, Sawyer, Bendixen, and Harrison spoke brief- 
ly and forcibly in favor of the bill. Harrison declared that 
if only one woman in a thousand wanted the ballot we have 
no right to deny her. Westlake and Lennon wanted to 
protect the women from the contaminating influence of 
politics, and G. W. Brown felt so strongly on this subject 
that he was not even willing to let the men vote on it, 
because the women would mix with the men in the work 
of campaigning. Bendixen asked Brown if he thought 
women would be contaminated if they were to come among 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1013 



21 



the men 011 the floor of the house. Are they contaminated 
when they go with us to church or in the lecture room? 

Hopkins spoke strongly in favor of the bill declaring 
that all great questions should be submitted to the peo- 
ple; but three days later he was not willing that the 
people should be permitted to vote on the question of 
allowing each county to decide for itself whether the open 
saloon should be licensed or not, claiming that the licens- 
ing of the sale of liquor is not a public question but a per- 
sonal and moral one as to which the public has no right 
to interfere. 

Here follows the analysis of the vote — 80 to 37: 

For Suffrage: 
Anderson, Walther 
Bendixen, C. M. 
Bjorge, H. P. 
Bjornson, G. B. 
Bouck, Chas. W. 
Braatelien, G. T. 
Brown, W. W. 
Burchard, C. D. 
Burrows, G. W. 
Campbell Wm. A. 
Carlson, Carl P. 
Child, S. R. 
Clementson, John 
Coates. J. H. 
Conley, Kerry 
Crane, Ralph B. 
Crawford, D. 
Davis, Andrew 
Dunn, R. C. 
Elmer, J. P. 
Finke, A. C. 
Frankson, Thos. 
Frye, P. H. 
Hanson, Alec 
Harrison, H. H. 
Healey, John A. 
Hillman, N. S. 



Hogenson, Tobias 
Holmberg, N. J. 
Hopkins, Frank 
Johnson, A. C. 
Johnson, J. T. 
Klemer, F. L. 
Kneeland, Thomas 
Knapp, C. T. 
Larson, Adolph 
Lee, J. F. 
Lindberg, R. J. 
Lundeen, Ernest 
McMartin, Finlay 
Marschalk, Paul 
Moeller, Geo. H. 
Morken, T. T. 
Nolan, W. I. 
Norton, W. I. 
Nelson, Nels E. 
Ofsthun, T. T. 
Olien, Andrew 
Orr, Chas. N. 
O'Neill, D. P 
Palmer, F. L. 
Papke, John W. 
Peterson, A. J. 
Porter, Miles 



Prince, T. H. 
Putnam, H. A. 
Peterson, P. A. 
Rines, Henry 
Sanborn, J. B. 
Sawyer, C. L. 
Skartum, K. G. 
Southwick, C. F 
Spooner, L. C. 
Stone, Dr. W. T 
Stoven, A. C. 
Sundberg, Victor 
Teigen, A. F. 
Thorson Jul. 
Thornton, J. M. 
Vasaly, L. W. 
Voxland, G. H. 
Warner, C. H. 
Warner, Elias 
Wefald, Knud 
Weld, B. I. 
Westman, L. O. 
Williams, M. W. 
Wilson, J. W. 
Walker, Isaac F. 
Warner, A. L. 



Against Suffrage: 
Anderson, John 
Barten, Jos. 
Borgen, Anton 
Brown, G. W. 
Carey, H. 
Dindorf, W. E. 
Dunn, H. H. 
Dwyer, Jas. 
Ferrier, Jas. 
Flowers, H. H. 
Fuchs, E. J. 
Hafften, Aug. 
Henry, J. A. 
Just, W. A. 
Kimpel, Geh. 



Knopp, S. M. 
Lennon, J. G. 
Lydiard, L. A. 
McGarry, P. H. 
Minnette, Frank E. 
Nimocks, F. E. 
Peterson, A. B. 
Pfaender, A. 
Pless, H. C. 
Preston, J. J. 
Reed, G. D. 
Ribenack, E. R. 
Saggau, H. A. 
Seebach, Frank 
Stageberg, N. A. 



22 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Steen, Henry Vollmer, Henry B. 

Swenson, Oscar A. Westcott, W. H. 

Thielen, Wm. H. Westlake, E. J. 

Virtue, Leonard 
Not Voting: 
Greene, T. G. Schwartz, Martin 

Sullivan, M. J. 
When the house bill which had passed by a full two- 
thirds majority reached the Senate Friday morning Feb. 
14th, there followed one of the most remarkable and un- 
heard of scenes ever witnessed in a legislative body. 
Several senators who favored equal suffrage were absent — 
some of them had been excused to go home on necessary 
business. One at least was more than a hundred miles 
away. 

The enemies of votes for women took advantage of 
this fact to prevent any consideration of the question on 
its merits. Senator Geo. N. Sullivan, of Stillwater, a 
shrewd, keen, uncompromising opponent of all progressive 
measures, moved to reject the Bill. His motion was sec- 
onded and the fight was on. Senator Sageng demanded a 
call of the Senate in order to get the absent members 
back, but it was impossible to reach them. Senators 
Sageng, Moonan, Haycraft and Lende appealed to the 
sense of fairness and justice of the Senate, but their ap- 
peals fell on deaf ears and were answered by sarcastic 
grins and sneers from their opponents who were ready to 
resort to any and all technical tricks to prevent open and 
free consideration of the bill on its merits. 
Kill Suffrage Bill. 
The ballot resulted as follows: 
Senators who favored woman's suffrage on 7 roll calls: 



Bedford, S. B. 
Benson, H. N. 
Boyle, J. P. 
Cashman, T. D. 
Dale, O. G. 
Denegre, J. D. 
Dwinnell, W. S. 
Elwell, J. T. 



Froshaug, S. J. 
Hanson, A. L. 
Haycraft, J. E. 
Lende, O. A. 
Moonan, John 
Nelson, S. A. 
Peterson, E. P. 
Putnam, F. E. 



Rustad, Edw. 
Sageng, O. 
Saugstad, John 
Schaller, Alb. 
Sundberg, B. E. 
Thoe, F. J. 
Wilson, G. P. 



Senators who opposed woman's suffrage on 7 roll calls: 



Ahmann, J. J. 
Anderson, E. N. 
Carpenter, G. F. 
Cheadle, H. W. 
Coller, J. A. 
Cooke, L. O. 
Donaldson 
Dunn, W. W. 
Duxbury, F. A. 
Glotzbach, F. L. 

Absentees for the Bill: 
Fosseen, M. L. 
Johnson, V. L. 

Absentees against the Bill: 
Klein, C. H. 



Gunn, D. M. 
Hackney, J. M. 
Handlan, Jas. 
Johnson, C. D. 
Johnston, Jas. 
McGrath, M. J. 
Marden, C. S. 
Olson, A. C. 
Poehler, A. A. 
Pugh, T. M. 



Rockne, A. J. 
Stebbins, A. T. 
Sullivan, G. H. 
Sullivan, J. D. 
Swanson, C. J. 
Van Hoven, P. 
Wallace, C. L. 
Weis, H. F. 
Works, S. D. 



Gunderson, C. 
Odell, C. W. 



J. 



Pauly, J. W. 



L'Herault, N. A. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 23 

Not voting on one or more roll calls: 

Dwinnell, W. S., Minneapolis — On Sen. O. Sageng's 
motion to refer the bill to the elections committee. 

Duea, S. B., Ruthton— On Sen. G. P. Wilson's motion 
to adjourn. 

Cook, C. F., Austin — On Sen. G. H. Sullivan's motion 
to reject bill. 

Murray, Frank, Bird Island — On Sen. Lende's motion 
to lay the bill on the table. 

DAILY NEWS EDITORIAL. 

"SHALL SLYNESS RULE THE STATE? 

Men of Minnesota, how do you like the muzzle which 
YOUR senators seem determined to fix permanently upon 
you? 

For a second time YOUR senate has refused you per- 
mission to say yes or no upon the big live issue of equal 
suffrage. 

The senate's first refusal was bad enough, but it fol- 
lowed the semblance of a fair and open debate. 

Now YOUR senate has a second time declared that 
YOU ARE INCOMPETENT to decide this matter. 

It is a constitutional question: the senate cannot 
settle it. The law is that you, THE VOTER, SHALL 
DECIDE. 

But the senate — YOUR senate — refuses to let you 
exercise the right which the law gives to you and to you 
alone. 

This second refusal did not follow fair and open de- 
bate. Having passed the house since the senate's first 
refusal, the bill came back with a thousandfold more of 
official standing than it had before. In the ordinary 
course of business, it would have traveled a well-marked 
course, so that its friends could have been advised of 
every step in its progress. 

This was not true. WHY? 

Before there was any time for a realignment, the bill 
was brought up on a sneak play without warning and 
again defeated. WHAT WAS THE REASON? WHO 
was the reason? 

The bill was defeated by a trick and the trickster was 
Sen. Geo. H. Sullivan, who has a long record for opposi- 
tion to people's legislation. Sullivan has fought the direct 
election of senators, the recall, the initiative and referen- 
dum, the state-wide primary and county option. Each of 
these measures could only be opposed on the ground that 
the people cannot be trusted with power to govern them- 
selves and to make wise decisions. If Sullivan cannot and 
will not trust the voters, why should he expect the people 
further to trust him? 

IF SUCH SENATORIAL SERVICE IS STATESMAN- 
SHIP, THEN THE PETTY CRIME OF A STREET 
GAMIN FILCHING FRUIT FROM A BLIND APPLE 
WOMAN SHOULD RANK AS SKILLED DIPLOMACY. 



24 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

IF THIS IS SQUARE AND ABOVE BOARD, THEN 
A WEASEL THROTTLING DUCKLINGS IN THE DARK 
OF THE MOON IS A PERFECT PICTURE AND PAT- 
TERN OF PROBITY. 

Who are these adepts in senatorial slyness, these 
students of stealth, these public servants who mistake the 
gumshoe for fair,* manly argument?" — Editor Daily News. 

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

In the House of Representatives the first real test 
came on the Initiative and Referendum bill. The elections 
Committee had reported the best bill that has ever been 
framed in any state in the union. 

The enemies of the bill knew it would be useless to 
make the attack directly from the front, so they tried a 
shrewd flank movement, but it didn't work. G. W. Brown, 
of McLeod county, attempted to put through the following 
amendment: 

"No petition herein mentioned, shall be circulated 
among the electors of this State for the purpose of secur- 
ing signatures thereto, but such petitions may be left in the 
custody of any of the following officers, viz.: Clerks of the 
District Court, City Clerks, Village Recorders and Town 
Clerks, and such other officers as may be herein:) fter 
designated by law." 

The right of petition is sometimes abused. It is a 
nuisance to have petition peddlers boring us for signa- 
tures. Paid petition peddlers sometimes use fraudulent 
methods to get names. It is easy to get signers to any 
kind of a petition. 

Therefore, says Brown, we will prohibit petitions, and 
many who think they are really democratic were fooled 
by the argument and fell into the trap. 

Now the right of petition is fundamental, and is guar- 
anteed by the Constitution of the United States. You 
have an undoubted natural right to draw up a petition and 
ask people to sign it. You have the same right to hire an 
agent to secure signatures. But, because there is some- 
times annoyance and fraud connected with such work, 
Mr. Brown was willing to prohibit by Constitutional pro- 
vision this right to circulate petitions. How some minds 
can magnify a mosquito bite! How easy it is to become 
so obsessed over a small evil that we are willing to over- 
turn the very foundations of freedom in our attempt to 
get rid of the evil. If there are evils connected with the 
circulation of petitions to initiate legislation, the remedy 
is not to be found in prohibiting such circulation — not 
even in prohibiting the employment of people to circulate 
petitions, but in prosecuting for fraud these who are guilty 
of fraud. 

To deposit petitions with town and village clerks and 
other public officials and compel all who wish to sign 
them to go to such places to sign, not only violates a 
fundamental principle of democracy — not only establishes 
an unwarranted espionage and tyranny over the personal 
rights of the citizen — but would be a most effective means 
of killing the efficiency of the Initiative and Referendum. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



25 



The question was argued long and powerfully, and 
most ingeniously by Brown, Hopkins, Lennon, H. H. Dunn 
and others, who tried to emasculate the bill where they 
did not dare oppose it openly, and they were able to get 52 
votes from men who were either so undemocratic in their 
make up, or so easily fooled by specious argument, that 
they were ready to sacrifice the very arc of the covenant 
of our liberties to remove a flea bite. 

Here is the way the vote stood. 

Those voting for the Amendment and Against the 
Real Initiative and Referendum. 



Anderson, John 
Anderson, Walther 
Barten, Joseph 
Bouck, Chas. W. 
Brown, G. W. 
Carey, Hubbard 
Crawford, D. 
Dindorf, W. E. 
Dunn, H. H. 
Dunn, R. C. 
Dwyer, James 
Elmer, J. P. 
Flowers, H. H. 
Greene, T. G. 
Hafften, August 
Hanson, Alec 
Harrison, H. H. 
Healey, John A. 
Henry, J. A. 
Hoggenson, Tobias 
Hopkins, Frank 
Kimpel, Gerhard 
Lennon, John G. 
Lydiard, L. A. 
Minette, Frank E. 
Nelson, Nels E. 
Those voting against the 
Initiative and Referendum. 
Bjorge, H. P. 
Bjornson, G. B. 
Borgen, Anton 
Braatelien, G. T. 
Brown, W. W. 
Burchard, C. D. 
Campbell, Wm. A. 
Carlson, Carl P. 
Child, S. R. 
Clementson, John 
Coates, J. H. 
Conley, Kerry 
Crane, Ralph E. 
Davis, Andrew 
Ferrier, James 
Finke, A. C. 
Frankson, Thomas 



Nimocks, Frank E. 
O'Neill, D. P. 
Papke, John W. 
Peterson, A. B. 
Peterson, P. A. 
Pfaender, Albert 
Pless, Ernest C. 
Preston, J. J. 
Reed, George D. 
Ribenack, E. R. 
Saggau, H. A. 
Sanborn, J. B. 
Schwartz, Martin 
Seebach, Frank 
Southwick, Claude E. 
Stageberg, N. A. 
Stoven, A. C. 
Sullivan, M. J. 
Swenson, Oscar A. 
Thielen, Wm. H. 
Thornton, J. M. 
Vollmer, Henry B. 
Walker, Isaac F. 
Warner, A. L. 
Wescott, W. H. 
Westlake, E. J. 
Amendment and For a Real 

Frye, P. H. 
Fuchs, E. J. 
Hillman, N. S. 
Holmberg, N. J. 
Johnson, A. C. 
Klemer, F. L. 
Kneeland, Thomas 
Knopp, Samuel M. 
Larson, Adolph S. 
Lee, J. F. 
Lindberg, R. J. 
Lundeen, Ernest 
McMartin, Finlay 
Marschalk, Paul ■ 
Moeller, Geo. H. 
Morken, T. T. 
Nolan, W. I. 



26 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

Norton, W. I. Sundberg, Victor C. 

Ofsthun, T. T. Teigen, A. F. 

Olien, Andrew Thorson, Julius 

Orr, Charles N. Vasaly, Louis W. 

Palmer, F. L. Voxland, George H. 

Peterson, A. J. Warner, C. H. 

Porter, Miles Warner, Elias 

Prince, T. H. Wefald, Knud 

Putnam, H. A. Weld, Bert I. 

Skartum, K. G. Westman, L. O. 

Spooner, L. C. Williams, M. W. 

Steen, Henry Wilson, J. W. 

Stone, Dr. W. T. Rines, Henry, Speaker 

Not voting : 
Bendixen, C. M. Knapp, C. T. 

Burrows, G. W. ■ McGarry, P. H. 
Just, W. A. Sawyer, C. L. 

Johnson, J. T. Virtue, Leonard 

Those who made strong speeches in opposition to the 
Brown Amendment were Nolan, Campbell and Child of 
Minneapolis, Finke of Rock Co., Frankson of Fillmore, 
and Teigen of Chippewa. 

The following Editorial from the St. Paul "Daily 
News" describes the situation very clearly and forcibly. 

"A Victory for the People — By a Narrow Margin. 

The Minnesota house of representatives yesterday 
proved true to its trust. It passed a real, effective initia- 
tive and referendum bill — a measure sound and workable 
in its provisions. 

BUT the final, almost unanimous vote of 110 to 7 did 
NOT represent the TRUE ALIGNMENT of the people's 
FRIENDS and FOES in the house. 

The crucial test came PREVIOUS to the final vote, 
when the question was on the adoption or rejection of a 
proposed amendment which would have choked out the 
life of this measure. Then the vote was 60 to 52 — A 
SCANT MAJORITY OF EIGHT for popular government. 

The deadly amendment would have prohibited the 
CIRCULATION of initiative and referendum petitions and 
provided that all such petitions be left with certain city 
or county officers, where people MIGHT go to sign them. 

It may be that here and there a FEW representatives 
voted for this amendment in the honest belief that it was 
a good thing. 

But the great majority voting for it KNEW that it 
would, if adopted, effectively KILL the initiative and refer- 
endum by making it well-nigh impossible to get sufficient 
signatures to a petition. 

Those few who voted for this amendment from honest 
conviction and who still in their hearts regard themselves 
as real SERVANTS of the people should take the next and 
EVERY following opportunity to VOTE RIGHT and set 
themselves right with their constituents. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



27 



And real friends of popular government must not be 
blinded to the actual closeness of their majority in the 
house. 

And voters everywhere should note how THEIR rep- 
resentative voted on this amendment at the crisis of a 
great fight for popular government. 

Of the eight who did not vote, Bendixen, Burrows, 
Knapp, Sawyer and J. T. Johnson would have been against 
the Brown amendment; Just, McGarry and Virtue for it. 

Against the bill on final passage, Walther Anderson, 
R. C. Dunn, Elmer, McGarry, Knapp, Saggau, Walker. 

In the Senate. 

Senator Geo. H. Sullivan declares that he favors the 
Initiative and Referendum, but what kind of an Initiative 
and Referendum act would satisfy him? It looks very 
much as if the kind that would please him would be one 
that the people could not use. 

The Senate committee made some amendments to the 
House bill, but none of them made it less workable; but 
when the bill came up on special order Tuesday, March 
18, Sullivan made a fierce onslaught, and partly succeeded 
in destroying its workability. 

He first offered an amendment to require a majority 
of all voting at an election to pass a constitutional amend- 
ment. This led to a long discussion with the following 
result: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Ahmann 


Posseen 


Putnam 


Anderson 


Gunn 


Pugh 


Boyle 


Hachney 


Rockne 


Cheadle 


Johnson, C. D. 


Schaller 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Johnston 


Sullivan, G 


Denegre 


Klein 


Swanson 


Donaldson 


L'Herault 


Van Hoven 


Duea 


Murray 


Wallace 


Dunn 


Olson 


Weis 


Dwinnell 


Pauly 


Wilson 


Elwell 


Poehler 


Works 


Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Bedford 


Gunderson 


Peterson 


Benson 


Hanson 


Rustad 


Cashman 


Haycraft 


Sageng 


Clague 


Johnson, V. L. 


Saugstad 


Cook, C. P. 


Lende 


Sundberg 


Dale 


McGrath 


Thoe 



G. H. 



Duxbury ' Moonan 

Froshaug Odell 

So the amendment was adopted, 33 to 22. 

Having so far succeeded, Sullivan next tried to apply 
the same principle to the vote on statutes, and require a 
majority of all voting at the election to pass a law. But 
in the opinion of the senate a law is different from an 
amendment to the constitution. It should be easier for 
the people to pass a law than to amend the constitution, 



28 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



so they voted Sullivan down and left it so that a majority 
of these voting on the question can make and amend 
statutes. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Cheadle 


Pugh 




Van Hoven 


Dunn 


Sullivan, G 


H. 


Weis 


Gunn 


Swanson 






Those who 


voted in the negative 


were : 


Anderson 


Gunderson 




Poehler 


Bedford 


Hanson 




Putnam 


Benson 


Haycraft 




Rustad 


Boyle 


Johnson, C. 


D. 


Sageng 


Cashman 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Saugstad 


Clague 


Johnston 




Schaller 


Cook, C. F. 


Klein 




Thoe 


Dale 


Lende 




Wallace 


Donaldson 


L'Herault 




Wilson 


Duea 


Moonan 




Denegree 


Duxbury 


Murray 




Hackney 


Dwinnell 


Odell 




McGrath 


Elwell 


Olson 




Rockne 


Fosseen 


Pauly 






Froshaug 


Peterson 






So the amendment was lost, 


43 to 8. 




Sullivan then offered an amendment to prohibit the 


circulation of petitions but failed. Yeas 17, and nays 33, 


as follows: 








Those who 


voted in the affirmative were: 


Ahmann 


Johnson, C. 


D. 


Sullivan, G. H. 


Anderson 


Olson 




VanHoven 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Pauly 




Wallace 


Donaldson 


Pugh 




Weis 


Duea 


Rockne 




Works 


Gunn 


Swanson 






Those who 


voted in the negative were: 


Bedford 


Froshaug 




Peterson 


Benson 


Gunderson 




Poehler 


Boyle 


Hanson 




Putnam 


Cashman 


Haycraft 




Rustad 


Cheadle 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Sageng 


Clague 


Johnston . 




Saugstad 


Dale 


Klein 




Sundberg 


Dunn 


Lende 




Thoe 


Duxbury 


McGrath 




Wilson 


Dwinnell 


Moonan 






Elwell 


Murray 






Fosseen 


Odell 







Senator Rockne then moved to amend so that the peti- 
tions must come from at least one third of the counties 
of the state instead of from ten counties, as in the original 
bill. This would make it very difficult to initiate labor 
legislation as the organized working men are mostly in a 
few large centers, also legislation that affected only cer- 
tain sections of the state, no matter how important, would 
be very hard to secure; but the amendment passed by the 
following vote: 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



29 



Those who 


voted in the affirmative were: 


Ahmann 


Johnson, C. 


D. 


Putnam 


Anderson 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Rockne 


Bedford 


Johnston 




Rustad 


Benson 


Klein 




Saugstad 


Clague 


McGrath 




Schaller 


Cook, C. F. 


Moonan 




Sundberg 


Dale 


Murray 




Swanson 


Donaldson 


Odell 




Thoe 


Duea 


Olson 




Weis 


Duxbury 


Peterson 




Wilson 


Elwell 


Poehler 




Works 


Froshaug 


Pugh 






Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Boyle 


Gunderson 




Pauly 


Cheadle 


Gunn 




Sageng 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Hackney 




Sullivan, G. H. 


Denegre 


Haycraft 




VanHoven 


Dunn 


Hanson 




Wallace 


Dwinnell 
Fosseen 


Lende 
L'Herault 







So the amendment was adopted, 35 to 19. 

The bill then passed the Senate unanimously. 

But the House refused to concur in these Senate 
amendments, and the conference committee reached a 
unanimous agreement on the points in controversy. This 
agreement reduced the number of counties in which peti- 
tions must be circulated .to one-fourth of all the counties 
instead of one-third, and made it much easier to adopt 
constitutional amendments. Both houses adopted the 
conference report; the Senate unanimously and the House 
with the following four dissenting votes: Anderson, J., 
McGarry, Peterson, A. B., and Saggau. And so, at last, 
after many years of struggle, the right to control legis- 
lation has been put up to the people of Minnesota for 
their discussion. 

THE RECALL. 

A very good recall bill was passed with only eight 
votes against it in the Senate, as follows: L. O. Cooke, 
Lake City; J. A. Coller, Shakopee; D. M. Gunn, Grand 
Rapids; C. J. Swanson, Fridley; J. D. Sullivan, St. Cloud; 
G. H. Sullivan, Stillwater; S. D. Works, Mankato; G. P. 
Wilson, Minneapolis. 

Two Senators were absent, H. N. Benson of St. Peter 
and Peter Van Hoven of St. Paul. All the other Senators 
voted for the bill on final passage. 

But the real test on the recall bill came on the at- 
tempt to amend so as to exempt judges. The conservatives 
made a strong effort to save the judges from recall, but 
could muster only the following 22 votes: 

Carpenter, Coller, Denegre, Dunn, Duxbury, Dwinnell, 
Elwell, Gunn, Johnson, C. D., Klein, L'Herault, Murray, 
Pugh, Putnam, Rockne, Schaller, Sullivan, G. H., Sullivan, 
J. D., Swanson, Wallace, Wilson and Works. 



30 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

Benson, Nelson and Van Hoven were absent, and 
all other senators voted against exempting judges from 
recall. 

Some of the senators opposed the bill because it in- 
cluded judges, but Senator Works explained that he was 
opposed to any recall bill, as he believed it dangerous to 
give the people such power. 

The following four senators even voted against the 
conference report on the recall: Dunn, Sullivan, G. H. 
Wilson and Works. 

In the House on final passage there were only two 
votes against the recall bill, R. C. Dunn of Princeton and 
Lydiard of Minneapolis. 






The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 31 

CHAPTER IV. 
ELECTION LAWS. 

I believe that we shall finally do away with primary 
elections entirely; but as long as we use the system, it 
should be made as perfect as possible. 

There are many objections to the system of primary 
elections, and I want to state briefly some of the most 
important of them. They are a great expense to the state 
and a greater expense to the candidates, making it very 
difficult for a poor man to aspire to office, where he must 
meet the labor and cost of two contested elections — one 
to get the party nomination, and the other to secure the 
election. Again, the primary election usually compels 
us to recognize political parties — and when each voter 
at the primary must declare his political faith, then the 
principle of the secret ballot is to a great extent destroyed. 
But in spite of this required declaration of the political 
party that one belongs to, it is easy for the members of 
one party to vote the other party ticket, thus nominating 
weak men for whom they have no intention of voting 
at the polls. 

Then it might justly be asked why should parties be 
recognized at all? Are not political parties voluntary 
organizations of citizens who come together to support 
certain ideas and ideals of government, and why should 
the public step in and interfere? In the long run, can 
any good come out of such interference? 

The answer has been that since parties select the 
candidates from among whom the people are to choose 
their public servants, the machinery of parties must be 
subject to legal regulation. I have never agreed with this 
contention, but have always insisted that if the laws would 
provide the simple and easily workable machinery whereby 
the people could select their public servants, no primary 
laws would be needed. Indeed such laws are worse than 
useless. 

The experiences of many countries bears out this con- 
tention. The preferential plan of voting at the regular 
election is now in operation in many parts of the world, 
and has recently been adopted in several cities of the 
United States. Grand Junction, Colorado, the home of 
that pioneer of progressive ideas in government, Senator 
James W. Bucklin, was the first in this country. It has 
been followed by several other cities of Colorado (including 
Denver), by Spokane, Wash., and recently by our own city 
of Duluth. 

The preferential plan is simplicity itself. Let any can- 
didate go on the ballot who can secure a certain number 
of endorsers to his petition. This leaves the field open 
for any party or other voluntary association of voters to 
put forward their candidate, and do all they can to elect 
him. 

At the election each voter has a right to express his 
preference. Opposite the name of his first choice for any 



32 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

office he puts the figure 1; opposite his second choice the 
figure 2; opposite his third choice the figure 3; and so on 
down the list of candidates for that office. He marks the 
candidates for each office in the same way all down the 
ballot. This plan frequently results in having many names 
on the ticket, and it takes much time to count the votes. 
But the ticket is not likely to be any longer than the 
ballot at the primaries, and the expense of counting is 
far less than the expense of the extra election made nec- 
essary by the primary system. 

Another valuable feature of this plan is that no minor- 
ity candidate is ever elected. No man can be elected until 
he secures a majority of votes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice, 
and so on. It does require much counting, but the plan 
is simple, the voters easily grasp it, and the election clerks 
and judges readily understand the methods of counting. 
This has been the experience wherever tried, and much 
expense is saved, both to candidates and to the state. 
But until such a plan as this can be adopted, we should 
have the best primary election law possible with 2nd or 
even 3rd and 4th choice. The voters will soon learn. Prac- 
tice is the only thing that makes perfect, and you can 
never teach people how to do a thing by denying them 
the chance to do it. 

The elections committee of the Senate brought in a 
fairly good primary bill — I should have liked it better if 
it had provided for 3rd choice as well as 2nd, and a simp- 
ler method of marking and counting the ballots. The bill 
provided for several changes in the present law. 

First — The Progressive party was recognized and per- 
mitted to have a place on the ballot. Regardless of what 
the effects might be on other parties, this is certainly only 
fair to a party that carried the state for president and 
polled over 33,000 votes for the head of the state ticket. 

Second — The non-partisan principle was applied to ail 
county and judicial offices and the second choice principle 
was retained. 

Third — No filings by petition are permitted after the 
primary election. 

Fourth — Where there is no contest for nomination 
the candidate is not put on the primary ballot. 

The first attempt to spoil the bill was made by Sen- 
ator Duxbury, who tried to put all county officers, except 
Superintendent of Schools back on to the partisan basis. 
But this attempt failed. 

Yeas 20 and nays 34, as follows: 



Anderson 


Fosseen 


Stebbins 


Carpenter 


Gunn 


Sullivan, G. H 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Klein 


Swanson 


Duea 


Marden 


Thoe 


Dunn 


Nelson 


Wallace 


Duxbury 


Olson 


Rockne 


Dwinnell 


Pugh 





The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



33 



Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Ahmann 


Handlan 




Rustad 


Bedford 


Hanson 




Sageng 


Boyle 


Haycraft 




Saugstad 


Cashman 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Schaller 


Cheadle 


Lende 




Sullivan, J. D. 


Clague 


L'Herault 




Sundberg 


Coller 


McGrath 




Van Hoven 


Donaldson 


Moonan 




Weis 


Elwell 


Odell 




Wilson 


Froshaug 


Pauly 




Works 


Gunderson 


Peterson 






Hackney- 


Putnam 







So the amendment was not adopted. 

Senator Stebbins assisted by Senator Geo. H. Sullivan 
then made a desperate attempt to strike out the second 
choice provision, but that also failed to get more than 28 
votes. Here is the line up. Those voting in the affirm- 
ative wanted to cut out the second choice. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Ahmann 


Johnson, C. 


D. 


Schaller 


Anderson 


Johnston 




Stebbins 


Carpenter 


Glotzbach 




Sullivan, G. H 


Clague 


Gunn 




Sullivan, J. D. 


Coller 


Klein 




Swanson 


Cooke, L. 0. 


L'Herault 




Van Hoven 


Denegre 


Pauly 




Wallace 


Donaldson 


Poehler 




Wilson 


Dunn 


Pugh 






Duxbury 


Rockne 






Those who voted in the negative 


were : 


Bedford 


Froshaug 




Odell 


Benson 


Hackney 




Olson 


Boyle 


Hanson 




Peterson 


Cashmann 


Haycraft 




Putnam 


Cheadle 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Rustad 


Cook, C. F. 


Lende 




Sageng 


Dale 


McGrath 




Saugstad 


Dwinnell 


Marden 




Thoe 


Elwell 


Moonan 




Weis 


Fosseen 


Nelson 




Works 



So the amendment was not adopted. 

Senator Clague then proposed to amend the bill so as 
to make all legislative candidates non-partisan. This 
was seized upon by the enemies of the bill as a good 
means of defeating it. Duxbury urged all opponents of 
the bill to vote for the amendment as a means of killing the 
bill. Many friends of the bill did not regard the amendment 
as at all dangerous and so made no fight against it. 

The amendment was adopted by the following vote: 



34 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Those who voted in the affirmative 


were: 


Ahmann 


Gunn 


Rockne 


Bedford 


Haycraft 


Stebbins 


Carpenter 


Johnson, C. D. 


Sullivan, G. H 


Cheadle 


Johnston 


Sullivan, J. D. 


Clague 


L'Herault 


Swanson 


Cook, C. F. 


McGrath 


Thoe 


Dale 


Marden 


Van Hoven 


Dunn 


Olson 


Wallace 


Duxbury 


Pauly 


Weis 


Elwell 


Peterson 


Wilson 


Fosseen 


Poehler 


Works 


Glotzbach 


Pugh 




Those who voted in the negative were: 


Anderson, 


Froshaug 


Odell 


Benson, 


Hackney 


Putnam 


Boyle, 


Hanson 


Rustad 


Cashman, 


Johnson, V. L. 


Sageng 


Coller, 


Klein 


Saugstad 


Denegre 


Lende 


Schaller 


Donaldson 


Moonan 




Dwinnell 


Nelson 








So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. Sullivan J. D., offered the following amendment 
to S. F. No. 412 and moved its adoption: 

Strike out all that part of section 6 of the bill after 
the word "office" in line 12 of said section. 

This amendment was intended to permit names to go 
on the ballot by petition after the primaries. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Carpenter 




Glotzbach 






Rockne 


Cheadle 




Gunn 






Rustad 


Cooke, L. 
Dale 




Johnson, C 
L'Herault 


D. 




Sullivan, G. H. 
Sullivan, J. D. 


Dunn 




McGrath 






Swanson 


Duxbury 




Marden 






Van Hoven 


Dwinnell 




Moonan 






Wilson 


Those w 


ho \ 


r oted in the negative were: 


Ahmann 




Fosseen 






Peterson 


Anderson 




Froshaug 






Poehler 


Bedford 




Hackeny 






Pugh 


Benson 




Hanson 






Putnam 


Boyle 




Haycraft 






Sageng 


Cashman 




Johnson, V 


L. 




Saugstad 


Clague 




Johnston 






Schaller 


Coller 




Klein 






Stebbins 


Cook, C. F. 




Lende 






Thoe 


Denegre 




Odell 






Works 


Donaldson 




Olson 






Weis 


Elwell 




Pauly 






Wallace 


So the amen 


dment was not 


adopted. 




The bill 


was then put on 


its 


final 


passage with the 


following result. 











The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



35 



Those who voted in the affirmative were: 






Ahmann 

Anderson 

Bedford 

Benson 

Boyle 

Carpenter 

Cashman 

Cheadle 

Clague 

Coller 

Cook, C. F. 

Cooke, L. O. 

Denegre 

Donaldson 

Dunn 

Elwell 

Fosseen 

Froshaug 



Glotzbach 

Hackney 

Handlan 

Hanson 

Haycraft 

Johnson, C. D. 

Johnson, V. L. 

Johnston 

Lende 

L'Herault 

McGrath 

Moonan 

Murray 

Odell 

Olson 

Pauly 

Peterson 

Poehler 



Pugh 

Putnam 

Rockne 

Rustad 

Sageng 

Saugstad 

Schaller 

Sullivan, G. H. 

Sullivan, J. D. 

Sundberg 

Swanson 

Thoe 

Van Hoven 

Wallace 

Weis 

Wilson 

Works 



Those who voted in the negative were: 
Dale Gunn Nelson 

Duxbury Klein Stebbins 

Dwinnell Marden 

In the House there was very little opposition. As 
finally passed the bill is quite an improvement over the 
old primary law. 



36 The Minnesota Legislature of WIS 



CHAPTER V. 
REAPPORTIONMENT. 

The last reapportionment of the state into senatorial 
and legislative districts was made by the legislature of 
1897-^sixteen years ago — and even that bill left to South- 
ern Minnesota rather more than its fair share of members 
on the constitutional basis that each section of the state 
shall be represented as nearly as may be according to its 
population. 

During the last sixteen years nearly every county to 
the south and west of the Twin Cities has lost population, 
while St. Paul, Minneapolis and all Northern Minnesota 
have gained very heavily. With these changes the old 
apportionment has become more and more unjust, espe- 
cially in the senate. 

The bill introduced by the joint committee of the 
house and senate does fairly apportion the members of 
both houses to the different sections of the state, tho there 
is great discrepancy in population among the districts in 
these sections. This is especially true of the northwestern 
part of the state where there are two very small districts 
hedged in by three very large ones, but this arrangement 
was almost inevitable and was entirely satisfactory to the 
members from that part of the state. 

The fight of H. H. Dunn, of Freeborn, to deprive the 
cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul of any increase in rep- 
resentation was the most bitter and dramatic in the whole 
contest; and from the constitutional point of view the most 
inexcusable. 

Mr. Dunn was able to rally to his support only 45 
votes, almost wholly from the southern part of the state 
where the members fought tenaciously to deprive the cities 
of their due proportion of members under the constitution, 
and to keep their own unfair excess of representation. 

It % is easy to understand why many of the country 
members feel hostile to the growing power of the cities. 
Heretofore the city members have been largely under the 
influence of the liquor and monopoly interests; and tho 
the present legislature is a great improvement over the 
past in this respect, there is still great chance for further 
improvement. And the city representation is bound to 
improve. The people of the cities are more and more com- 
ing to understand the great fundamental principles of real 
democracy, and more and more their representatives are 
sure to voice the sentiments of the growing intelligence of 
their constituents. The future has much to hope and 
little to fear from the cities. In the words of Frederick 
C. Howe, "The city is the hope of democracy," and yet the 
bill as reported and passed by the house left each of the 
large cities with one senator and two representatives less 
than they were entitled to under any fair interpretation 
of the constitution. If the constitution gives the cities too 



The Minnesota Legislature of VMS 



?>1 



much power the remedy lies in an amendment limiting 
the representation from the large centers, not in a viola- 
tion of the constitution in a reapportionment bill. 

The vote on the Dunn amendment was as follows: 
Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Barten 


Hafften 




Reed 


Bendixen 


Hanson 




Saggau 


Braatelien 


Hogenson 




Schwartz 


Brown, W. W. 


Johnson, A. 


C. 


Seebach 


Burchard 


Just 




Southwick 


Carey 


Kimpel 




Stageberg 


Conley 


Klemer 




Steen 


Crane 


Lindberg 




Swenson 


Crawford 


McMartin 




Teigen 


Dunn, H. H. 


Minette 




Voxland 


Ferrier 


Papke 




Walker 


Finke 


Peterson, A. 


J. 


Weld 


Flowers 


Peterson, P. 


A. 


Wescott 


Frankson 


Pless 




Westmarj 


Frye 


Prince 




Williams 


Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Anderson, J. 


Hopkins 




Porter 


Anderson, W. 


Johnson, J. 


T. 


Preston 


Bjorge 


Knapp 




Putnam 


Bjornson 


Kneeland 




Ribenack 


Borgen 


Knopp 




Sanborn 


Bouck 


Larson 




Sawyer 


Brown, G. W. 


Lee 




Skartum 


Campbell 


Lenon 




Spooner 


Carlson 


Lundeen 




Stone 


Child 


Lydiard 




Stoven 


Clementson 


McGarry 




Sullivan 


Coates 


Marschalk 




Sundberg 


Davis 


Moeller 




Thielen 


Dindorf 


Morken 




Thornton 


Dunn, R. C. 


Nelson 




Thorson 


Dwyer 


Nimocks 




Vasaly 


Elmer 


Nolan 




Virtue 


Fuchs 


Norton 




Vollmer 


Greene 


Ofsthun 




Warner, A. L. 


Harrison 


Olien 




Warner, C. H 


Healy 


O'Neill 




Wefald 


Henry 


Orr 




Westlake 


Hillman 


Palmer 




Wilson 


Holmberg 


Peterson, A 


. B. 


Mr. Speaker 



So the amendment was lost, and then the bill was 
passed by a large majority, 84 to 33. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 
Anderson, J. Borgen Campbell 



Anderson, W. 


Bouck 


Carlson 


Bendixen 


Braatelien 


Child 


Bjorge 


Brown, G. W. 


Clementson 


Bjornson 


Burrows 


Coates 



38 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Con ley 


Lydiard 




Sawyer 


Davis 


McGarry 




Skartum 


Dindorf 


Marschalk 




Southwick 


Dunn, R. C. 


Minette 




Spooner 


Elmer 


Moeller 




Steen 


Fuchs 


Morken 




Steven 


Greene 


Nelson 




Sullivan 


Harrison 


Nimocks 




Sundberg 


Healy 


Nolan 




Teigen 


Henry 


Norton 




Thielen 


Hillman 


Ofsthun 




Thornton 


Holmberg 


Olien 




Thorson 


Hopkins 


O'Neill 




Vasaly 


Johnson, J. T. 


Orr 




Virtue 


Kimpel 


Palmer 




Vollmer 


Knapp 


Peterson, A. 


B. 


Walker 


Kneeland 


Peterson, A 


J. 


Warner, A. L. 


Knopp 


Pless 




Warner, C. H. 


Larson 


Porter 




Wefald 


Lee 


Preston 




Weld 


Lennon 


Putnam 




Westlake 


Lindberg 


Ribenack 




Wilson 


Lundeen 


Sanborn 




Mr. Speaker 


Those who 


voted in the negative 


were : 


Barten 


Frankson 




Prince 


Brown, W. W. 


Frye 




Reed 


Burchard 


Hafften 




Saggau 


Carey 


Hanson 




Schwartz 


Crane 


Hogenson 




Seebach 


Crawford 


Johnson, A. 


C. 


Stageberg 


Dunn, H. H. 


Just 




Swenson 


Dwyer 


Klemer 




Voxland 


Perrier 


McMartin 




Wescott 


Pinke 


Papke 




Westman 


Flowers 


Peterson, P. 


A. 


Williams 



So the bill passed and its title was agreed to. 

When the bill reached the senate the committee on 
reapportionment gave one more senator each to the first 
and third districts. 

Then Senator Putnam offered an amendment that 
would have taken from the three large counties all the 
increase in the senate that their population entitled them 
to. Duxbury and Moonan made long and earnest appeals 
for the Putnam amendment, but could not carry it. 

The vote was as follows: Yeas 20 and nays 38. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Anderson 


Glotzbach 


Poehler 


Bedford 


Haycraft 


Putnam 


Benson 


Lende 


Rustad 


Cashman 


McGrath 


Stebbins 


Cook, C. F. 


Moonan 


Thoe 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Nelson 


Weis 


Duxbury 


Olson 





The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



89 



Those 


who 


voted in the negative 


were : 


Ahmann 




Hackney 




Rockne 


Boyle 




Handlan 




Sageng 


Cheadle 




Hanson 




Saugstad 


Clague 




Johnson, C. 


D. 


Schaller 


Coller 




Johnson, V. 


L. 


Sullivan, G. H. 


Denegre 




Johnston 




Sullivan, J. D. 


Donaldson 




Klein 




Sundberg 


Dunn 




L'Herault 




Swanson 


Dwinnell 




Mar den 




Van Hoven 


Elwell 




Odell 




Wallace 


Fosseen 




Pauly 




Wilson 


Gunderson 




Peterson 




Works 


Gunn 




Pugh 






So the 


amendment was not 


adopte 


d. 



Then Duxbury offered an amendment that would take 
from Hennepin county all increased representation in the 
senate, with the following result: Yeas 21 and nays 36. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Anderson 


Duxbury 




Poehler 


Bedford 


Haycraft 




Putnam 


Benson 


Johnston 




Schaller 


Cashman 


Lende 




Stebbins 


Cook, C. P. 


Moonan 




Thoe 


Dale 


Nelson 




Weis 


Duea 


Olson 




Works 


Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Ahmann 


Gunderson 




Pugh 


Boyle 


Gunn 




Rockne 


Carpenter 


Hackney 




Rustad 


Cheadle 


Handlan 




Sageng 


Clague 


Hanson 




Saugstad 


Coller 


Johnson, C. 


D. 


Sullivan, G. H 


Denegre 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Sullivan, J. D. 


Donaldson 


Klein 




Sundberg 


Dunn 


L'Herault 




Swanson 


Dwinnell 


Odell 




Van Hoven 


Elwell 


Pauly 




Wallace 


Fosseen 


Peterson 




Wilson 



So the amendment was not adopted. 
The bill was then put on its final passage, when Gnly 
ten senators voted against it. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Ahmann 


Denegre 


Hackney 


Bedford 


Donaldson 


Hanson 


Benson 


Duea 


Johnson, C. D 


Boyle 


Dunn 


Johnson, V. L 


Carpenter 


Dwinnell 


Johnston 


Cheadle 


Elwell 


Lende 


Clague 


Fosseen 


L'Herault 


Coller 


Glotzbach 


Marden 


Cooke, L. 0. 


-Gunderson 


Murray 


Dale 


Gunn 


Odell 



40 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1918 



Pauly 


Saugstad 


Swanson 


Peterson 


Schaller 


Van Hoven 


Pugh 


Stebbins 


Wallace 


Rockne 


Sullivan, G. H. 


Weis 


Rustad 


Sullivan, J. D. 


Wilson 


Sageng 


Sundberg 


Works 


Those who voted in the negative 


were: 


Anderson 


Haycraft 


Poehler 


Cashman 


Klein 


Thoe 


Duxbury 
Handlan 


Moonan 
Olson 





So the bill passed and its title was agreed to. 

The house promptly accepted the senate amendment, 
and so, after sixteen years of struggle, the northern part 
of the state has secured a fair representation in the legis- 
lature, and the cities a part of the increase their popula- 
tion would entitle them to under the constitution. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 41 



CHAPTER VI. 
Local Self Government. 

Local self government for each social and political 
unit is the very corner stone of democracy; and so it has 
been thru all the ages of human evolution. The self 
governing village community has been the home of political 
freedom, and here liberty has been cradled and nourished 
and helped to grow great and strong, intelligent and far 
reaching. 

Away back among the hills and valleys and forests of 
Central Asia, long before our Aryan ancestors migrated 
eastward into India or westward into Europe, the people 
of each little community had its own system for the man- 
agement of its local affairs; and here we shall find the 
germs of all our democratic institutions, even to those 
latest and newest instruments of democracy the Initia- 
tive, Referendum and Recall. 

All thru the ages, interference with such local 
right of self government has been the essence of tyranny; 
and this is as true to day as in any past age. Neither 
does it matter how this interference with local freedom 
has been brought about, whether by conquest, as so often 
in the past, when a village or city has been overthrown 
by force of arms and subjected to a foreign foe to be ruled 
and plundered for the benefit of its oppressors, or by the 
more insidious, but just as effective, modern method of 
permitting state legislatures and congress to pass laws 
that regulate and tyrannize over the people of the smaller 
communities. The result is just the same. Liberty is lost. 

"No people," said Lincoln, "are good enough to gov- 
ern another people;" and no legislature is good enough or 
intelligent enough to frame the regulations by which the 
purely local affairs of our towns and counties, villages and 
cities are to be governed. And yet a large part of the 
time of every session of our legislature is wasted on just 
such worse than worthless work as this. 

Of course many of our cities now have home rule 
charters by which they manage most of their local affairs; 
but why shouldn't all things of a local nature be turned 
over to each town or city? Why should the state have any 
voice whatever in the purely local affairs of Minneapolis or 
St. Paul, Winona or Mankato, or any other village or city 
in the state? No legislature can possibly know the needs 
of a town or city so well as the people themselves. 

The result is that local matters are put through the 
legislature, by the members from each locality, and the 
rest of the members simply vote for whatever the local 
representatives bring forward. In this way much legisla- 
tion is put through that the people of the locality affected 
know little or nothing about, and which they would have 
none of if they did know. 

We need not think that the members from any locality 
are dishonest or lacking in ability. The mere fact that 
they are human is enough. They can't know the local 
needs well enough, and if they did know they could not 



42 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

devote the time necessary to intelligently frame the 
needed laws. 

This principle was forcibly brought out on March 3rd, 
when nineteen new bills were rushed through the senate 
under suspension of the rules. About two or three min- 
utes were given to each bill. They were all Minneapolis 
measures; had never been printed; no senator knew any- 
thing about any of the bills, except as the matter was ex- 
plained in the most general way. Of course, no one really 
knew anything about what he was voting on. Even the 
senator who had charge of the bills had never read them. 
But they all went through without a vote against any one 
of them. Even if every one of these bills was just what 
was needed, by the people of Minneapolis, what can be 
said in support of such methods of securing needed laws? 
But at least one of these bills was as bad as can well be 
imagined. The bill professed to amend the laws relating 
to the board of health of that city. What it really did was 
to create a purely irresponsible board, appointed by the 
mayor, and over which the people had no control what- 
ever. 

Then it proceeded to vest that board with arbitrary, 
tyrannical and practically unlimited powers. 

Of course the bill aroused intense opposition. Its 
tyrannical and iniquitous features were promptly laid 
bare, and it was killed very dead by the Hennepin County 
house members; but what shall we say of a system that 
makes such things possible, and subjects patriotic citizens 
to the necessity of constantly defending their rights and 
liberties. 

But the most far-reaching and dangerous interference 
of the legislature with local affairs relates to their at- 
tempts to regulate local 

Public Utilities. 

In most parts of the civilized world all public utilities 
are owned and controlled by the people directly; and 
everywhere there is a strong tendency to make this owner- 
ship and control more complete and effective All public 
utilities, whether of city, state, or nation are essential 
parts of our public highways. The common path — the pub- 
lic highway — has always been regarded as a public affair 
and never as a private affair. In the very nature of things 
no private ■ person nor corporation can possibly build and 
equip any railway, canal, pipe line, telegraph or telephone 
system, gas or electric system, street railway, or water 
works, without first securing a grant of governmental 
power, — without first getting the government of nation, 
state or city to turn over a part of its natural and neces- 
sary functions to such private person or corporation. Fol- 
lowing this line of reasoning, the courts have always held, 
that, whenever such corporations are created and endowed 
with these powers, and duties, they must always be sub- 
ject to any and all reasonable regulations which the people 
may impose. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 43 

Where shall this power to regulate rest? Your 
answer to this question will depend largely on whether 
you really believe in democracy or not. Democracy says 
that the social unit that is served by the public utility 
corporation shall be the power to regulate it. The fed- 
eral government shall regulate corporations engaged in 
inter-state commerce; but must keep its hands off those 
whose operations lie wholly within a state. The state 
government must regulate- state corporations ; the city gov- 
ernment must control city corporations. If a city is big 
enough to have a street railway, a gas, or an electric com- 
pany, or any other city utility, it is certainly big enough 
to control such utility. If it makes mistakes it must learn 
from them. No outside power can do this for any city. 
State or federal control of city corporations is a violation 
of the principle of home rule and local self government, 
that should not be tolerated. 

Of late years the cities have been rapidly learning how 
to control their public service corporations. The corpora- 
tions do not like this, so they are now making a concerted 
movement for the establishment of state commissions that 
are to have complete control over all public utilities within 
the state; thus depriving every city 'of any and all control 
over their city corporations, and even over their own pub- 
licly owned utilities. 

The State Utility Commission Bill. 

Several bills having this object in view were intro- 
duced into the legislature of 1913. Senators Wallace and 
Murray each brought in a bill of this character early in- 
the session. Later on Senator Wallace was taken very 
sick. It looked as if he would not be able to do anything 
for his measure. About this time "there was suddenly, and 
almost without warning, reported out of the house com- 
mittee on general legislation, a bill which, proved to be 
identical in all essentials with the Wallace bill. This bill 
immediately aroused great opposition, and very justly so, 
as will be seen by a very brief analysis of some of its pro- 
visions. 

First, it created a State Commission of three men, ap- 
pointed by the Governor for a term of six years, over whom 
the people had no check whatever; and into the hands of 
these men was to be placed the complete control of every 
public utility in every city and village of the state, leaving 
the people of these cities and villages with no voice what- 
ever in the management of their local public-service cor- 
porations, except as they might be able to influence the 
state commission by indirect means. 

No city could, in any way, regulate or control the price 
of gas, electricity, or street car service. No city could 
make any kind of agreement with any of its public service 
corporations in any way whatever, except as it was done 
through this State Commission. 

Can we imagine a more complete overthrow of the 
principle of home rule and local self government? 

But this is not all, nor the worst of the evil. 



44 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

This bill, in sections 30 and 31, prohibits lower rates 
than those in force Jan. 1st, 1913. In St. Paul, both gas 
and electric rates had already been lowered. They would 
have to be restored to the old excessive rates in force prior 
to Jan. 1st. In many places rates are much too high, but 
under this bill they could not be reduced. 

More than this, if any town or city wanted to take 
over any public utility, to be owned and operated by the 
people, the conditions were made very hard, and it would 
be almost impossible to comply with them. Three-fifths 
of all those voting at an election must vote favorably, be- 
fore a city could come into the ownership of a public 
utility at all, and even then, it is probable that the law 
would deprive them of all control over their own local 
concern. 

The bill contained the feature known as "The Inde- 
terminate Permit." This is innocent looking, but most 
vicious in operation. It practically amounts to a perpetual 
franchise, tho the bill claimed to do away with all fran- 
chises; but what difference does it make whether it is 
called a franchise or a permit? In either case it is the 
same thing. 

And if a city should determine to buy out the property 
of a public utility corporation, what then? The bill con- 
tained a very carefully drawn provision, — carefully drawn 
to protect the interests of the corporations. Section 65 
provided that "the Commission shall take into account and 
include the amount of money actually and wisely expended 
in acquiring, constructing, creating and bringing the prop- 
erty to its then state of efficiency, and every other just 
and reasonable element of value, including the value of 
such property as a going concern. And the only condition 
was that it must have been a "going concern" for five 
years. 

How would it be possible, under this section, for the 
people ever to get relief from excessive charges? All the 
old junk that had ever been thrown on the scrap heap must 
be included; for the money was undoubtedly spent 
"wisely," when the stuff was bought. And the people had 
probably paid for it already, perhaps many times over in 
the cost of service; but now they must pay for it again. 

"A Going Concern" — what does this mean? and what 
would the people be forced to pay for? Doesn't this force 
the people to pay for all "watered stock?" If the going 
concern is charging rates for service that will pay divi- 
dends on millions of dollars of watered stock, as is the case 
with our street car company, our gas and electric compan- 
ies, how are we to escape paying tribute for all time to 
come on all that water? 

Sections 30, 45 and 59 are also very interesting. 
Nearly all public service corporations have paid for much 
of their extensions out of current profits, due to the privi- 
lege of charging excessive prices for the service rendered. 
This bill provides that all such investments are to be con- 
sidered and taken into account, if the people decide to 
take over a public utility; thus fastening upon the people 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



45 



the necessity of paying dividends on what had been legally 
stolen from them in excessive charges. 

These are the worst features of the bill; but it was 
full of other bad features, like the provision enabling the 
Commission to withhold facts from the public for a period 
of ninety days. A good deal of harm could be done in 
ninety days — done beyond repair. The information would 
come to the public too late. 

Bad as this bill was — backed by the public service cor- 
porations, not only in Minnesota, but of the whole country 
as well — much as it violated every principle of home rule 
and local self government, yet it received 30 affirmative 
votes, when it came up in the house on special order 
April 11. 

Knapp, G. W. Brown, and Lydiard did all they could to 
put the bill, through; but their efforts failed. Child, 
Pfaender and Minette riddled the bill so completely — 
showed up its iniquities so plainly — that most honest men 
could not fail to see what it really was, though it was 
masquerading as a great step in the direction of progress 
and reform. But we all know how the livery of Heaven is 
stolen to serve the Devil in. 

Here is the way the members voted: 

Those in the affirmative were: 



Brown, G. W. 


Hopkins 


O'Niel 


Dunn, R. C. 


Kimpel 


Pless 


Dwyer 


Knapp 


Preston 


Elmer 


Knopp 


Saggau 


Ferrier 


Lennon 


Steen 


Finke 


Lydiard 


Virtue 


Haften 


McGarry 


Volmer 


Harrison 


Nelson 


Walker 


Healy 


Nimocks 


Warner, C. H. 


Hogenson 


Ofsthun 


Westcott 


Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Anderson, J. 


Davis 


Marschalk 


Anderson, W. 


Dindorf 


Minette 


Barten 


Dunn, H. H. 


Morken 


Bendixen 


Flowers 


Norton 


Bjorge 


Frankson 


Olien 


Bjornson 


Frye 


Orr 


Borgen 


Fuchs 


Palmer 


Bouck 


Green 


Papke 


Brown, W. W. 


Hanson 


Peterson, A. B 


Braatelien 


Henry 


Peterson, A. J. 


Burchard 


Holmberg 


Peterson, P. A. 


Burrows 


Johnson, A. C. 


Pfaender 


Campbell 


Johnson, J. T. 


Prince 


Carlson 


Just 


Putnam 


Child 


Klemer 


Ribenack 


Clementson 


Kneeland 


Sanborn 


Coates 


Larson 


Schwartz 


Conley 


Lee 


Seebach 


Crane 


Lindberg 


Skartum 


Crawford 


McMartin 


Southwick 



46 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

Stageberg Thielen Wefald 

Stone Thornton Weld 

Stoven Thorson Westlake 

Sullivan Vasaly Westman 

Sundberg Voxland Williams 

Swenson Warner, E. Wilson 

Teigen Warner, A. L. Mr. Speaker 

The following were absent or not voting: 
Carey, Hillman, Lundeen, Moeller, Nolan, Porter, 
Reed, Sawyer, Spooner. Of these nine members, Porter, 
Hillman, Carey and Nolan had been excused, but the 
others had all answered to roll call during the morning. 

The Nolan Bill. 

Early in the session Rep. W. I. Nolan of Minneapolis 
introduced into the house a very short and simple bill 
granting to the governing body of every city or village 
in the state "the right and power to prescribe and limit 
the charges which any (public utility) corporation may 
demand or receive for the commodities or services fur- 
nished by it." 

This bill passed the house without a dissenting vote. 
Then the corporations got very busy — especially the Min- 
neapolis General Electric Company, which is operating 
without any franchise, and which this bill would bring 
under the control of the city council. 

On Tuesday, April 8th, this bill passed the senate 
with only five votes against it, — Dunn, Murray, G. H. Sulli- 
van, J. D. Sullivan and Thoe. Thoe's vote against the 
bill was a great surprise, as he had a consistent record in 
favor of all progressive measures. Later he voted in favor 
of passing the bill over the Governor's veto, and thus set 
himself right again. 

G. H. Sullivan made a very hard fight against the bill, 
but did not seem to make much impression on the senate. 
The Veto. 

The next act in the drama took place a few days 
later, when Governor Eberhart vetoed the bill, in a mes- 
sage that threatened the legislature, that if they did not 
pass a bill for a general public utility commission, to con- 
trol all public utilities throughout the state, he would call 
the legislature in special session to pass such a bill. 

In view of the fact that all members must lose their 
time and serve without pay in a special session, the Gov- 
ernor's threat was a pretty big club to hold over their 
heads to compel them to do the bidding of the corpora- 
tions. 

A Comparison. 

THE GOVERNOR'S BILL AND THE NOLAN BILL. 

The governor's bill took the control of all the local 
public utilities out. of the hands of the people to be served, 
and placed it under the control of three men to be ap- 
pointed by himself and in no way responsible to the people. 
The Nolan bill left the control in the hands of the people 
to be served and increased their powers. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 47 

The Governor's bill violates every principle of home 
rule and local self government. The Nolan bill preserves 
these principles and extends their application. 

The Governor's bill is autocratic, the Nolan bill demo- 
cratic. 

The Governor's bill is reactionary, the Nolan bill pro- 
gressive. 

The Governor's bill deprives the people of every city 
and village in the state of rights and liberties they now 
enjoy; the Nolan bill extends and enlarges those rights 
and liberties. 

The Governor's bill opens wide the door to the worst 
kind of political corruption; the Nolan bill reduces the 
possibilities of corruption to a minimum. 

The Governor's bill is advocated by the public service 
corporations; the Nolan bill is urged and supported by the 
plain people. 

In the legislature, the Governor's bill was supported 
by the reactionaries and the servants of the special inter- 
ests, aided by a few progressive men who did not under- 
stand the influences behind it, nor appreciate its inevitable 
results; the Nolan bill was urged by men whose record is 
free from taint of corporation influence. 

The Governor's bill was defeated in the House 78 to 
30. The Nolan bill first passed the House unanimously, 
and the senate with only five votes against it; and it was 
passed over the Governor's veto by a vote of 83 to 27, 
and at least five of these 27 confessed that they voted to 
uphold the veto, because of political patronage the Gov- 
ernor had promised them, and had threatened to withhold 
if they voted to over-ride his veto. 

The following house members voted to over-ride the 
veto of the Nolan bill, who had at first voted for the Gov- 
ernor's bill, some of them, at least, not knowing its real 
nature: Dunn, R. C, Dwyer, Ferrier, Finke, Harrison, 
Hopkins, Knapp (the supposed author of the bill), Lennon, 
Nelson, Ofsthun, Preston, Warner, C. H. 

In short, on the side of the Governor's bill were all 
the forces of special interest, reaction, political corrup- 
tion, tyranny and oppression. On the side of the Nolan 
bill were the plain people, with their determination to 
retain self government, to extend home rule, and to keep 
for themselves and their children the right to manage their 
own local affairs, to protect themselves from corporate 
robbery, and preserve their liberty and independence. 

Here is the way the vote stood on the motion to pass 
the Nolan bill over the Governor's veto. His support 
would have been considerably less, had he not used the 
pressure of patronage. 



48 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Those voting to sustain the Governor were: 


Bendixen 


Johnson, J. 


T. 


Pless 


Borgen 


Kimpel 




Putnam 


Bouck 


Knopp 




Reed 


Brown, G. W. 


Lindberg 




Saggau 


Elmer 


Lydiard 




Southwick 


Hafften 


McGarry 




Virtue 


Hanson 


O'Niel 




Walker 


Healy 


Papke 




Westman 


Hogenson 


Peterson, P. 


A. 




Those voting to over-ride the Governor's veto were: 


Anderson, J. 


Henry 




Prince 


Anderson, W. 


Hillman 




Ribenack 


Barten 


Holmberg 




Sanborn 


Bjorge 


Hopkins 




Sawyer 


Bjornson 


Johnson, A. 


C. 


Schwartz 


Braatelien 


Just 




Seebach 


Brown, W. W. 


Klemer • 




Skartum 


Burchard 


Knapp 




Spooner 


Burrows 


Kneeland 




Stageberg 


Campbell 


Larson 




Stone 


Carlson 


Lennon 




Stoven 


Child 


Lundeen 




Sullivan 


Clementson 


McMartin 




Sundberg 


Coates 


Marschalk 




Swenson 


Conley 


Minette 




Teigen 


Crane 


Moeller 




Thielen 


Crawford 


Morken 




Thornton 


Davis 


Nelson 




Thorson 


Dindorf 


Nolan 




Vasaly 


Dunn, R. C. 


Norton 




Voxlund 


Dwyer 


Ofsthun 




Warner, A. L. 


Ferrier 


Olien 




Warner, C. H. 


Finke 


Orr 




Wefald 


Frankson 


Palmer 




Weld 


Frye 


Peterson, A. 


B. 


Williams 


Fuchs 


Peterson, A. 


J. 


Wilson 


Green 


Pfaender 




Mr. Speaker 


Harrison 


Preston 







But the Governor and his machine, the corporations 
and their friends, now got more busy than ever. They 
brought every possible pressure to bear to sustain the 
veto; and when it came up in the Senate, the Governor 
was sustained by the following vote: 

Those who voted to sustain the Governor were: 



Ahmann 


Dunn 


Moonan 


Anderson 


Duxbury 


Murray 


Benson 


Glotzbach 


Olson 


Carpenter 


Gunn 


Odell 


Clague 


Handlan 


Peterson 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Johnson, C. D. 


Poehler 


Denegre 


Johnston 


Pugh 


Donaldson 


Klein 


Putnam 


Duea 


Marden 


Schaller 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



49 



Stebbins 




Swanson 


Works 


Sullivan, G. 


H. 


Van Hoven 




Sullivan, J. 


D. 


Weiss 




Those who voted to over-ride the veto were: 


Bedford 




Proshaug 


Pauly 


Boyle 




Gunderson 


Rockne 


Cashman 




Hackney 


Rustad 


Cheadle 




Hanson 


Sageng 


Coller 




Haycraft 


Saugstad 


Cook, C. P. 




Johnson, V. L. 


Sundberg 


Dale 




Lende 


Thoe 


Dwinnell 




L'Herault 


Wilson 


Elwell 
Fosseen 




McGrath 
Nelson 





THE VETO OF THE TELEPHONE BILL. 

And the Minnette-Holmberg Bill, which the Governor 
also vetoed a few days later, — what was there in this bill, so 
dangerous to the rights of the people as to warrant a 
veto? 

The only vital thing in this bill was that it compelled 
the telephone companies to make physical connection, one 
with another, thus permitting subscribers on one system 
to talk with subscribers of another system, by paying a 
reasonable charge. The bill also put all the telephone 
companies in the state under the control of the Railway 
and Warehouse Commission. 

The N. W. Telephone Co. did not like this. They 
lobbied against the bill before its passage, and used every / 
means to prevent its repassage over the Governor's veto. ' 

But the House did repass the bill over the veto by a 
vote of 95 to 13. 

Those voting to sustain the Governor were: 
Bouck Lennon Saggau 

Brown, G. W. Lydiard Virtue 

Dwyer McGarry Walker 

Healey Moeller 

Knopp Nimocks 

But in the Senate the Governor and the corporations 
won out again. 

Those who voted to sustain the Governor were: 



Ahmann 


Handlan 


Poehler 




Anderson 


Johnson, C. D. 


Pugh 




Carpenter 


Johnston 


Schaller 




Coller 


Klein 


Stebbins 




Cooke, L. 0. 


L'Herault 


Sullivan, G. 


H 


Donaldson 


Marden 


Sullivan, J. 


D. 


Duea 


Moonan 


Swanson 




Dunn 


Murray 


Van Hoven 




Glotzbach 


Odell 


Weiss 




Gunn 


Peterson 


Works 





50 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Elwell 


Olson 


Fosseen ' 


Pauley 


Froshaug 


Putnam 


Gunderson 


Rockne 


Hackney 


Rustad 


Hanson 


Sageng 


Haycraft 


Saugstad 


Johnson, V. L. 


Sundberg 


Lende 


Thoe 


McGrath 


Wilson 


Nelson 





Those who voted to over-ride the Governor's veto 
were: 
Bedford 
Benson 
Boyle 
Cashman 
Cheadle 
Clague 
Cook, C. F. 
Dale 
Denegre 
Duxbury 
Dwinnell 

These two vetoes furnish the most crucial test to 
which the Senators were put during the entire session. 

Those who had the honesty, intelligence and deter- 
nination to with-stand the Governor's threats and plead- 
ings are worthy of all praise; for the pressure was very 
great. Those who needed no persuasion or threats and 
those who yielded should be given plenty of time for med- 
itation and change of heart, before being further trusted 
with public responsibility. 

The Experience of Wisconsin. 

Since the legislature adjourned the Minnesota Home 
Rule League has made a thoro investigation of the work- 
ings of the system of state regulation of local public 
utilities and local public service corporations in Wisconsin 
and bring the following indictment in 17 counts: 

1. The Commission has not given relief to the public 
in the way of lower rates and better service in any such 
measure as has been secured by the municipalities of 
Minnesota under home rule, and in notable cases in other 
states not under state regulation. 

2. It has shown a strong leaning towards the interest 
of the utilities as against public interest, as revealed in 
its findings of high rates for service, more than reason- 
able profits and excessive valuations. Originally created 
as an agency for the protection of the public from the 
exploitation of utility companies, it has become rather an 
agency for the protection of the companies and the means 
of increasing the value of their investments. 

3. It has moved with exasperating slowness in rate 
and service cases involving great public concern, with the 
companies profiting enormously in the interim by its in- 
action. 

4. It has put a big financial burden upon the state 
at large for the alleged benefit of the cities. 

5. It has been an obstacle in the way of the cities 
securing for themselves relief from oppressive conditions 
of rates and service through municipal ownership, by in- 
viting competition, or by other methods. 

6. It has compelled the cities in many cases to go to 
large expense to defend their interests, both before the 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 51 

Commission and the courts, when the theory of the law is 
that the Commission is created to do exact justice toward 
all parties concerned. 

7. It has used the indeterminate permit to protect 
inefficient private electric utilities in their local monopoly, 
in continuing poor service and excessive charges and in 
avoiding their legal contract obligations with municipali- 
ties. 

8. It has busied itself with inconsequential details 
which common sense alone would leave to the discretion 
of local authorities and utility officials, thus inconvenienc- 
ing the public and delaying consideration of vitally im- 
portant matters. 

9. It has determined for municipalities matters of 
broad fundamental public policy, which by natural right 
belong to the municipalities to determine for themselves. 

10. It has interfered unwarrantably with the opera- 
tions of municipal plants. 

11. It has discouraged the cause of conservation of 
natural resources advocated so strongly by other depart- 
ments of the Wisconsin government. 

12. It has failed signally to eliminate the public utili- 
ties from local politics. On the contrary, it has compelled 
them to be more active than ever. 

13. It has worked to suppress community initiative 
and to retard the development of citizenship and growth 
of the citizens in capacity for self-government. 

14. In rate making for water and gas, both municipal 
and private plants, it has discriminated heavily against 
the general public and in favor of the privileged few. 

15. It has shown a brutal disregard of local public 
sentiment in matters affecting vitally the political, social 
and material welfare of communities. 

16. It has gained such influence over the legislative 
body of the state that, in effect, it writes its own legisla- 
tion, with the result of dangerously enlarged powers in 
this department of government. 

17. It has not facilitated the settlement of controver- 
sies between municipalities and public utility companies, 
but rather often operates to still further complicate the 
situation and delay the day of final adjustment. 



52 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Cashman Anti-Discrimination Bill. 

Shall a railway be permitted to charge more to one 
person than to another for the same service? 

Shall it be allowed to charge to one town or city a 
larger sum than to another for the same class of freight', 
carried the same distance, and under practically the same 
conditions? 

This is the kernel of the so-called distance tariff bill. 
Perhaps it would have been nearer the truth, if it had been 
named "An act to prevent common carriers from discrim- 
inating for or against persons and places in the matter 
of freight charges." 

For twenty years the state of Iowa has denied the 
railways the right to discriminate between places in their 
charges for carrying freight. As a result every town in the 
state has exactly the same opportunity so far as freight 
charges are concerned. 

For many years the people of the smaller centers in 
Minnesota have demanded as low rates as are given St. 
Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth. During all this time the 
railways have fought against this just demand, and all 
the big business interests of the large cities have come 
valiantly to their rescue. 

Why? 

Partly because such bodies in our large cities are 
more or less under the domination of the great railways, 
and partly because they are enjoying especially low rates, 
which they are afraid they will lose, if the roads are 
forced to treat all parts of the state alike in the matter 
of rates. 

Here are some of the rates voluntarily given by the 
railroads to certain favored classes of freight from certain 
favored centers. 

On brick from Chaska to the twin cities there is a 
rate of three cents per hundred pounds, while for the same 
distance to other towns the rates are higher. If the Iowa 
rate were applied strictly, it would cost 3.3 cents per hun- 
dred, but all other places the same distance from Chaska 
would get equally low rates. 

From Mankato to the twin cities the rate on crushed 
stone is 3 cents and on dressed stone 3% cents; while to 
Tracy to the west and to Rochester to the east, practically 
the same distance, the rate is 6 cents. 

From International Falls to the twin city, 332 miles, 
the rate on paper is 10 cents, while to Fergus Falls, 42 
miles less, the rate is 33 cents, or more than three times 
as much. One railroad man claimed that the rate to 
Fergus Falls was only 26 cents, but even then it is more 
than two and one half times as much as to the twin cities, 
a greater distance. 

The lumber rate from Park Rapids to the twin cities, 
210 miles, is 8% cents, while from Park Rapids to More- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 191, 



head it is 13 cents and to Kenedy 15% cents, practically 
the same distance. The Iowa rate would be 8.8 cents. 

Lumber from Cloquet to the cities is 5% cents for 
175 miles, but to Morehead, only 60 miles farther, it is 
15% cents. The Iowa rate to Morehead would be 9.2 cents, 
and to the twin cities about the same as the present rate. 

Soft coal from Duluth to the twin cities, 150 miles, 
costs 90 cents a ton, but to Owatonna 68 miles farther it 
costs $1.40 per ton. At the same time the N. P. brings 
coal from Duluth to the twin cities for the Milwaukee 
road at a charge of 40 to 52 cents a ton — less than half 
what they charge the ordinary shipper. 

The flour rates from Pipestone to Heron Lake, 55 
miles, is 10% cents while from Mpls. to Heron Lake, 157 
miles, it is the same price. From Pipestone to Hanley 
Falls, 61 miles, the flour rate is 9% cents; from Mpls. to 
Hanley Falls, about 2% times as far, the rate is only 9 
cents. 

Such discrimination as this in favor of the big mills 
of Mpls., will help to account for the number of dead flour 
mills to be found all over the state, killed by unfair dis- 
crimination on the part of the railways. 

Structural iron from Duluth to the twin cities, 150 
miles, costs 7% cents; while to Austin, 100 miles farther, 
it cost 17.1 cents. How can manufacturing be done in 
small places, in the face of such unjust discrimination in 
the charges for carrying coal, iron, and lumber, the raw 
materials of industry? 

Many small manufacturing concerns would like to 
locate in the smaller towns. Their means will not per- 
mit them to pay the high price for land in the cities. 
But they can't go to the smaller towns because of the 
high freight rates, and hence are kept out of the state. 

Are any of these rates too low? Are the railways 
really carrying at a loss when they charge 3 cents per 
hundred for brick from Chaska, or 3 to 3% for stone from 
Mankato, or 10 cents for paper from International Falls, 
or any of the other low rates which have been recorded 
above? 

If these rates are too low, then these industries are 
in the pauper class, and are securing these favors at the 
expense of other industries which must be overcharged 
to make up for these favors to certain men and certain 
towns. 

But are they too low? Are the roads carrying these 
particular classes of goods from these particular towns 
at a loss? 

This question was put squarely to each of the rail- 
way attorneys who appeared before the committee to 
argue against the Cashman bill, and in every case they 
admitted that such freight was not carried at a loss, but 
they insisted that such low rates did not give the railways 
a "normal profit." What is a "normal profit?" Is it a 
profit that will enable the railways to pay 7% on all the 
water they have ever poured into their stock? It would 
seem so. 



54 The Minnesota Legislature of 191.3 

If the roads can carry brick from Chaska to the cities 
for three cents a hundred pounds, why can't they carry 
for the same price the same distance to any other center? 
And why shouldn't they be required to do so? 

Of course we should not lose sight of the fact that the 
roads can carry cheaper where they can have a full load 
both ways, than "where they have to go one way empty, 
but is there any more likelihood of being obliged to go 
back empty from any other town than from the twin cities. 

Many people regard great cities as very desirable 
things, and we may freely admit that if a city grows great 
without favors of any kind, no complaint can be made. 
But there are certain classes of people in all large cities 
that are not satisfied with equal opportunity — not satis- 
fied with a fair field and no favor, but are always seeking 
favors. 

Who are benefited by the unnatural booming of cities? 
Is it the great mass of the people — 75% to 95% of the 
people — who work each day for what they get and never 
live too well? Or is it rather those who own the lots and 
lands upon which the cities are built, and who are always 
seeking to draw more people to the centers so as to 
boom their lands? This is a positive damage to the ordin- 
ary man. If he is a renter his rents are increased with 
every addition to the population while his wages are 
not raised. If he is a home owner, booming the city does 
not increase his wages, but it does increase the taxes on 
his home. 

So even from the most selfish point of view, the great 
mass of the city people have nothing to gain but much to 
lose by any system that gives unfair advantages to the 
cities. But the common people are not often heard in these 
matters — they are too busy earning a living to think much 
about them; and if they did think, they couldn't afford 
to spend the time to come to the capitol to make their 
voices heard. The result is that the big interests that 
fatten on favors are the only ones in evidence, and Sena- 
tors from the cities are like other men; they are impressed 
by what they hear. The interest of the unrepresented 
silent mass seldom influences them. 

The Cashman Bill to prohibit discrimination between 
places by the railroads of Minnesota came up in the senate 
Wednesday afternoon March 5th and was debated at great 
length. 

The principle speeches in favor of the bill were made 
by Senator Cashman of Steele Co., author of the bill, who 
made a very clear and impressive presentation of his 
case, and by Senator Coller of Scott. 

The opposition came chiefly from Senators Pauly and 
Dwinnell of Minneapolis, assisted by Senators Rockne of 
Goodhue and Clague of Redwood. 

The Cashman bill allowed the long line to compete 
with the short line from junction points, thus doing away 
with one objection to a strict distance tariff. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1911 



55 



Below is given a letter from the Iowa Railway Com- 
mission giving their view of the case. 

"State of Iowa. The Board of Railway Commission. 

Des Moines, Feb. 25, 1913. 
Hon. T. E. Cashman, 

Senate Chamber, St. Paul, Minn. 
My Dear Mr Cashman: 

Referring to your letter of the 16th inst. regarding 
the bill you are urging for passage before the Senate of 
your state, would say that you are right as to your under- 
standing of my views in this matter. The mileage basis is, 
in my judgment, the only true and equitable plan to handle 
matters of this kind, and the only clause that we now 
desire in our law is that the long lines be permitted to 
meet the short line rates at junction points without it 
being made the basis of rates at intermediate points. 
That is the only change that I would suggest in the Iowa 
law, and I hope soon to see this change made in our state. 

Trusting this explanation is satisfactory to you, I am 
Very truly yours, 

N. S. KETCHUM, 

Commissioner." 

After a very full discussion the question came to a vote 
with the following results: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Ahmann 


Froshaug 




Olson 


Anderson 


Glotzbach 




Peterson 


Bedford 


Gunderson 




Poehler 


Benson 


Hanson 




Putman 


Carpenter 


Haycraft 




Rustad 


Cashman 


Johnston 




Sageng 


Coller 


Lende 




Saugstad 


Cook, C. F. 


Marden 




Schaller 


Cooke, L. 0. 


Moonan 




Stebbins 


Donaldson 


Murray 




Thoe 


Duea 


Nelson 




Wilson 


Duxbury 


Odell 






Those w 


ho voted in the negative 


were: 


Boyle 


Johnson, C. 


D 


Sullivan, J. D 


Cheadle 


Johnson, V. 


L. 


Sundberg 


Clague 


Klein 




Swanson 


Denegre 


L'Herault 




Van Hoven 


Dunn 


McGrath 




Wallace 


Dwinnell 


Pauly 




Weis 


Elwell 


Pugh 




Works 


Fosseen 


Rockne 






Gunn 


Sullivan, G. 


H. 





In the House the bill was fully discussed by H. H. 
Dunn and Ralph Crane in the affirmative and by Orr in 
the negative and was passed by the following vote, yeas 
71 and nays 42: 



56 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Those 


who voted in the affirmative 


were: 


Anderson, 


J. 


Frye 




Pfaender 


Anderson, 


W. 


Hafften 




Pless 


Barten 




Hanson 




Putnam 


Bendixen 




Henry 




Reed 


Bjorge 




Holmberg 




Saggau 


Bjornson 




Hopkins 




Schwartz 


Braatelien 




Johnson, A. 


C. 


Southwick 


Brown, G. 


W. 


Johnson, J. 


T. 


Spooner 


Brown, W 


w. 


Just 




Stageberg 


Burchard 




Kimpel 




Stone 


Burrows 




Klemer 




Swenson 


Carey 




Larson 




Teigen 


Carlson 




Lee 




Thorson 


Child 




Lindberg 




Vasaly 


Clenientson 


McMartin 




Virtue 


Coates 




Minette 




Voxland 


Conley 




Morken 




Warner, C. H. 


Crane 




Nelson 




Warner, E. 


Crawford 




Olien 




Welfald 


Dunn, H. 


H. 


O'Neill 




Wescott 


Dunn, R. C. 


Papke 




Westman 


Finke 




Peterson, A 


B. 


Williams 


Flowers 




Peterson, A 


J. 


Mr. Speaker 


Frankson 




Peterson, P. 


A. 




Those 


who voted in the negative were: 


Borgen 




Lundeen 




Sawyer 


Bouck 




Lydiard 




Seebach 


Campbell 




McGarry 




Steen 


Dwyer 




Marschalk 




Stoven 


Elmer 




Moeller 




Sullivan 


Ferrier 




Nimocks 




Sundberg 


Fuchs 




Nolan 




Thielen 


Greene 




Norton 




Thornton 


Harrison 




Ofsthun 




Vollmer 


Healy 




Orr 




Walker 


Knapp 




Palmer 




Warner, A. L. 


Kneeland 




Prince 




Weld 


Knopp 




Ribenack 




Westlake 


Lennon 




Sanborn 




Wilson 



And then on April 9th there was finally passed a bill 
which would permit a shipper to choose his own route of 
shipment even tho his goods had to be carried over two 
or more railways. This enabled shippers to choose the 
shorter route and thus save expenses. 

The only opponents of this bill in the senate were 
Denegre, Dunn, Handlan, Klein and Swanson. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 57 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE TONNAGE TAX BILL. 

Our Mineral Resources. 

The richest iron mines in the world are in northern 
Minnesota. More than one third of all the iron taken out 
of the earth now comes from those mines. Once all this 
belonged to the people, a heritage of vast value, placed 
there by Nature for the common use of all. 

Through ignorance and shortsightedness, if nothing 
worse, the title to most of this has passed out of the hands 
of* the people, and become the property of the gigantic 
steel trust, and nothing now remains to the people of 
the state, save only the power of taxation. That power 
we still have, and some day we may learn how to use it, 
so as to restore to the people a part at least of their lost 
inheritance. 

Back in the early days before 1895, the only way the 
state had to get any revenue from these iron mines, was 
through a small tonnage tax that was paid into the state 
treasury. This tax was in lieu of all other taxes both for 
state and local purposes. This left the people on the iron 
ranges practically destitute of revenue — no money for 
county roads nor for village streets — no money for schools, 
nor police nor fire protection — no money for water works 
nor gas nor electric lights — for nearly all the values were 
in the mines, and these were wholly exempt from taxation, 
except the one cent per ton that was paid to the state when 
the mines were opened and worked, and even this tax 
ceased when, for any reason, it became more profitable to 
close the mines and let the people starve for want of em- 
ployment, for the mines were about the only source of 
employment on the iron ranges; but this condition could 
not arise under the Bjorge-Frankson bill because the mines 
under that bill would be taxed the same as they are taxed 
now for all local purposes. 

In 1894 and 1895 the writer saw mines shut down, 
villages deserted, homes and stores empty, the people 
driven away, the country barren and desolate as a desert, 
almost no roads, nor schools; not a foot of pavement nor 
hardly any sidewalk in any town or city on the ranges; 
and all because of a stupid and vicious act of the legis- 
lature, passed many years before by misrepresentation 
and subterfuge, if by nothing worse — an act of the legisla- 
ture that pretended to be in the interest of developing the 
mining industry, when in reality it encouraged and estab- 
lished mining monopoly; — an act of the legislature that 
was never constitutional, but which disgraced the statute 
books for many years, while the monopolizers of the 
people's resources steadily and surely fastened their 
clutches on the richest iron mines in all the world. But in 
1900 an amendment to the constitution was adopted by the 
people which permits a tax on the output of mines. 

Partly through the work of the present writer, in pub- 
lishing a report of the situation on the ranges, and largely 



58 The Minnesota Legislature of WIS 

through the untiring labor of S. A. Stockwell, who was a 
member of the legislature of 1895, the old, unconstitu- 
tional tonnage tax law was repealed and the mines were 
placed on the assessment roll and taxed on their value 
(whether used or not) for schools and roads, for side- 
walks and pavements, for water and gas and electricity, 
for all township and village, city, county and state pur- 
poses. The desert began to blossom and the wilderness 
to bear fruit for the benefit of man and of civilization. 
The impassible paths through the swamps and forest have 
become the finest county roads in all the state, bordered 
with good plank walks and lighted with electric lamps for 
many miles, connecting the towns and cities of the range; 
and the towns and cities themselves now have good paved 
streets, cement walks, water and sewer, gas and electric 
systems that make them the equal of many places of far 
more people and greater pretentions. The school build- 
ings are among the best in the world and are equipped 
with every modern appliance for manual training, cooking, 
sewing, and all the mechanical and domestic arts, while 
the great assembly rooms are high and light and well 
ventilated, and in some at least beautifully decorated with 
paintings and statuary. 

And yet this is not enough. Those mine owners are 
still reaping princely fortunes out of these resources of 
nature — the common gift to all — whose value is socially 
produced and in justice ought to belong to all. They are 
exhausting the mineral wealth of the people of Minnesota 
to build palaces in distant lands, while they leave us the 
desert and desolation that follow in the wake of their ex- 
ploitation; because by the estimate of competent authority 
all available iron ore in this state will be exhausted in 
forty years leaving substantially nothing but holes in the 
ground having no taxable value. 

The people understand all this, but the problem is a 
difficult one. Many times bills have been drawn, more or 
less crude and ill-considered, but honestly aimed at se- 
curing more of this vast common wealth for the benefit 
of the people of the state. So far all these efforts have 
been unsuccessful. A vivid recollection of the old days 
of want and desolation still remains in the memory of 
many residents of the ranges and any suggestion of a ton- 
nage tax falls upon them like a sentence of banishment 
or death. This fear has been carefully cultivated by 
agents of the mine owners and by unscrupulous politicians 
until it is about all a man's life is worth in that part of 
the state to propose any measure that can be called a ton- 
nage tax. 

Partly because of this fear and partly because the 
problem is such a difficult one — because the economical 
and legal riddles involved are so hard to unravel, — all 
proposed bills have failed to pass or have been vetoed by 
the Governor. 

In the legislature of 1913, the simplest bill yet pro- 
posed was brought forward by H. O. Bjorge of Becker 
County and Thomas Frankson of Fillmore. This bill did 



, 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



59 



not touch in any way the present taxes for local and 
county purposes, but in place of the present state tax of 
about 3% mills on the dollar of valuation, it proposed to 
classify all mines as producing and non-producing mines. 
A mine that actually produced 2,000 tons per year or more 
was to be called a producing mine and taxed at from 2c 
to 5c per ton according to the iron in the ore. All mines 
producing less than 2,000 tons per year and all unused 
mines were to be classed as non-producing mines and 
taxed as they are now for all purposes. 

This of course is an arbitrary classification, and the 
question was raised at once whether it would not conflict 
with the constitution of the state which provides that all 
property of the same class must be taxed alike for all 
purposes. 

One would suppose that there must be some natural 
differences in order that property might be placed in dif- 
ferent classes; but what natural difference is there be- 
tween a mine producing 2,000 tons a year and another 
producing 1999 tons a year? 

And furthermore, it would be possible for a mining 
company to take from a very rich mine 2,000 tons in a 
year, pay the state the 5c per ton equaling $100, and es- 
cape all the many thousands of dollars of tax it is now 
paying to the state on the full vajue of the mine. And 
even if such a tax could stand the test of the courts, it 
would fall on the operators and not on the fee owners; 
and the fee owners are the ones who ought to be reached. 

After the bill had been thoroughly discussed for sev- 
eral hours, and after the question of its constitutionality 
had been fully gone into, after the danger of long and ex- 
pensive litigation had been pointed out, and the question 
raised whether such litigation would not tie up all local 
revenue, the vote was finally taken and resulted as 
follows : 



Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Anderson, W. 

Barten 

Bendixen 

B jorge 

Bjornson 

Braatelien 

Brown, W. W. 

Burchard 

Burrows 

Campbell 

Carey 

Carlson 

Clementson 

Conley 

Crane 

Crawford 

Dunn, H. H. 

Ferrier 

Finke 



Flowers 

Frankson 

Frye 

Hafften 

Hogenson 

Holmberg 

Johnson, A. C. 

Johnson, J. T. 

Just 

Kimpel 

Lee 

Lindberg 

McMartin 

Minette 

Morken 

Ofsthun 

Olien 

Papke 

Peterson, A. B. 



Peterson, A. J. 

Peterson, P. A. 

Porter 

Putnam 

Reed 

Schwartz 

Skartum 

Stageberg 

Swenson 

Teigen 

Voxland 

Warner, E. 

Wefald 

Weld 

Westcott 

Westman 

Williams 



60 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Those who voted in the negative were: 
Anderson, J. Knopp Seebach 

Borgen Larson Southwick 

Bouck Lennon Spooner 

Brown, G. W. Lundeen Stone 

Child Lydiard Stoven 

Coates McGarry Sullivan 

Davis Marschalk Sundberg 

Dindorf Moeller Thielen 

Dwyer Nelson Thornton 

Dunn, R. C. Nimocks Thorson 

Elmer Nolan Vasaly 

Puchs Norton Virtue 

Greene O'Neill Vollmer 

Harrison Orr Walker 

Healy Palmer Warner, A L. 

Henry Preston Warner, C. H. 

Hillman Prince Westlake 

Hopkins Ribenack Wilson 

Klemer Saggau Mr. Speaker 

Kneeland Sanborn 

Knapp Sawyer 

I do not think we can justly question the honesty or 
intelligence of any man who voted either way on this bill. 
Yet it does seem that .some way ought to be possible by 
which the people of the state can save for themselves 
more of the enormous values which now go to the mine 
owners, but which justly belong to all of us. Possibly 
some tax on the fee owners' interest in the land could be 
devised which would reach the ones who really get the 
money when the mines are opened and the ore taken out. 
This ought to be imposed in addition to all present taxes, 
state and local, on all producing mines. 






The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 61 

CHAPTER IX. 
Temperance and Moral Measures. - 

"You can't make men good by passing laws." 

Maybe not; but you can help to keep them bad by 
standing in the way of the repeal of bad laws. 

Perhaps there are few laws on our statute books that 
have done more to make and keep men bad than the laws 
licensing and legalizing the saloon. 

If a thing is right it needs no license; if it is wrong 
it should have none. 

Under the common law anything that was a nuisance 
or a menace to the neighborhood could be stopped as 
soon as public opinion demanded its removal. The courts 
would enjoin the nuisance and order it ended. 

But when the saloon, or anything else, is licensed, it 
is made legal and respectable, and the people are then 
powerless to proceed against any particular saloon as a 
nuisance. 

The license system has forced the saloonkeepers to 
specialize in the business of making drunkards of their 
fellowmen. It has also forced them to become politicians, 
and made the saloon a political center. 

The high license system has made it so expensive to 
own and operate a saloon that it has resulted in forcing 
the wealthy brewer into the saloon business, so that a 
very large part of the saloons in every American city are 
thus owned and operated, and so, to protect themselves, 
the liquor interests have been forced to control the city 
governments. Out of this has grown the union of all the 
vicious elements with the big public service corporations 
and rich tax dodgers. 

These interests have bound our cities hand and foot 
and are always united to prevent any measures, like Ini- 
tiative, Referendum, Recall, Equal Suffrage, or any re- 
form of the election laws even, that would give the peo- 
ple more control of their own public affairs. 

More than this, the excessive taxes on liquors, the 
high license fees, and the enormous expense of fitting 
up the gilded palaces where liquors are sold, are directly 
responsible for the injurious adulterations that are now 
almost universal. 

And to put the finishing touches on this monument 
of inquity, whose base is the license system, the dealers 
in liquors have been driven to organize a system for cre- 
ating appetite in the young; so that we have the various 
divices for leading boys and girls — even very young chil- 
dren — into the drink habit. 

To get rid of these evils is not a case of trying to make 
men good by passing laws; but rather of repealing laws 
that make men bad, and thus leaving them free to follow 
their natural inclination to be good. 

For men and women are by nature good. If this 
were not so, the human race would have run its course 
and disappeared from the face of the earth ages ago. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



In spite of meddlesome statutes and evil customs that 
have been forced by police and public opinion, the race 
has been constantly rising to greater heights of intelli- 
gence, decency and moralty. 

What is now needed is greater freedom for normal de- 
velopment. 

We must repeal bad laws and give human nature a 
chance to be good. 

The legalized saloon must be driven out. 

The inherent right of the people of any village, city 
or county to repeal the license system within its own 
limits must be restored to them. 

County Option. 

Many members of the legislature of 1913 had been 
elected largely on this issue; and a bill to grant the people 
of each county the right to vote on the question of the 
licensed saloon was introduced early in the session. 

The people of the villages of the state have for many 
years enjoyed the right to decide for themselves this 
question of the licensed saloon. 

But the right of the people of the counties to vote 
out the saloon has been denied. 

As the county is the unit for purposes of taxation — as 
the county has to stand the expense for the trial of crim- 
inals and the support of paupers created by the licensed 
saloons — it would seem reasonable that the people of a 
county should not be denied the right to shut out licensed 
saloons from their territory. 

This is not a question of prohibition at all. Nor is it 
a question of depriving people of liquor, who are accus- 
tomed to its use. In no way does it prevent men from 
choosing for themselves what they shall eat and drink. 
It simply puts into the hands of the people of the county 
the power to vote out the licensed drinking place, just 
as the villages and smaller cities now have that power. 

Nor is there any merit in the contention that when 
a county refused to vote out all saloons then every city 
and village in the county must license the sale of liquor. 
This would be a flat violation of the principle of home 
rule and local self government. 

The common law would suppress any drinking place 
anywhere whenever the people of the neighborhood de- 
manded it. That is the correct principle. 

County option is no violation of the principle of local 
self government, but rather an extension of that princi- 
ple to the county that must stand the extra expense of this 
institution. 

On Friday morning, Feb. 14, the County~Option Bill 
came up in the house; and, after a thorough discussion, 
was killed by a vote of 59 to 59, as follows: 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



63 



Those who 


voted in the affirmative were: 


Anderson, W. 


Johnson, J. 


T. 


Sanborn 


Bjorge 


Klemer 




Sawyer 


Bjornson 


Kneeland 




Skartum 


Braatelien 


Larson 




Southwick 


Brown, W. W. 


Lee 




Spooner 


Burchard 


Lindberg 




Stone 


Campbell 


McMartin 




Sundberg 


Carlson 


Marschalk 




Teigen 


Child 


Morken 




Vasaly 


Clementson 


Nolan 




Voxland 


Conley 


Norton 




Warner, A. L. 


Crane 


Ofsthun 




Warner, C. H. 


Davis 


Olien 




Warner, E. 


Dunn, R. C. 


O'Neill 




Wefald 


Finke 


Orr 




Weld 


Frankson 


Palmer 




Westman 


Frye 


Peterson, A. 


B. 


Williams 


Hillman 


Peterson, A 


J. 


Wilson 


Holmberg 


Porter 




Mr. Speaker 


Johnson, A. C. 


Putnam 






Those who 


voted in the negative 


were: 


Anderson, J. 


Healy 




Prince 


Barten 


Henry 




Reed 


Bendixen 


Hogenson 




Ribenack 


Borgen 


Hopkins 




Saggau 


Rouck 


Just 




Schwartz 


Brown, G. W. 


Kimpel 




Seebach 


Burrows 


Knapp 




Stageberg 


Carey 


Knopp 




Steen 


Coates 


Lennon 




Stoven 


Dwyer 


Lundeen 




Sullivan 


Dunn, H. H. 


Lydiard 




Swenson 


Dindorf 


McGarry 




Thielen 


Crawford 


Minette 




Thornton 


Ferrier 


Moeller 




Thorson 


Flowers 


Nelson 




Virtue 


Fuchs 


Nimocks 




Vollmer 


Greene 


Papke 




Walker 


Hafften 
Hanson 


Peterson, P. 
Pless 


A. 


Westlake 


Harrison 


Preston 







So the bill was lost. 

Responsibility for the defeat of County Option in the 
House may justly be charged to Representative Nelson 
of Douglas County. 

Nelson's Part. 

HIS PLEDGE: "If elected I will live up to the plat- 
form adopted in last May's convention in every respect. 

THE PLATFORM: "Resolved that we are in favor 
of a State, County Option law and recommend that any 
Republican candidate for the Legislature stand solidly for 
this principle." 



64 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

HE VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. HIS VOTE BEAT 
IT. IF HE HAD VOTED FOR IT ONE OTHER REPRE- 
SENTATIVE WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST IT WOULD 
HAVE VOTED FOR IT. 

And so, through the treachery of one of its pledged 
supporters, the liquor interests were temporarily victor- 
ious. 

The Road House Bill. 

Worse than the licensed saloons of the towns and 
cities are the road side saloons — the Road Houses — that 
are met with along the main traveled country roads. In 
the country districts there is no police protection; no way 
of maintaining order; no way to restrain those who fre- 
quent these road houses. Since the incoming of the auto- 
mobile , it is very easy for parties of toughs from the 
cities to ride out to these road houses and "make a night 
of it." Prostitutes and their followers here mingle with 
and corrupt innocent girls who have been brought to these 
places, not knowing their true character. Perhaps there 
are no worse breeders of vice and crime than are these 
licensed road houses. For many years attempts have been 
made to pass a law forbidding the granting of licenses to 
sell liquor outside of the towns and cities in places where 
police protection is impossible. 

The temperance committee reported favorably the 
O'Neill bill — introduced by Rep. D. P. O'Neill of Pennington 
Co. — and on Feb. 25 the question came up on special or- 
der. Rep. Minette made a strong attempt to amend it 
so as to allow township boards to grant licenses. This 
would save several German saloons in his district. Also 
it would practically nullify the bill, for the town boards 
would be quite as likely to grant these road houses li- 
censes as would the county boards which now grant them. 
And this was the very object of the bill — to prevent the 
county boards from legalizing the sale of liquor at these 
roadside places, where drunkenness and debauchery are 
now so common, where so many crimes are committed, 
and where so many innocent girls are ruined. The oppo- 
sition was so strong that Minette withdrew his amend- 
ment, and the Journal of the House does not record him as 
voting at all. 

Only 26 votes could be mustered against the bill as 
follows : 

Barten Fuchs Saggau 

Borgen Ferrier Seebach 

Bouck Healy Steen 

Brown, G. W. Henry Stoven 

Carey Kimpel Sullivan 

Crawford Knopp Thielen 

Dindorf Papke Virtue 

Elmer Pless Vollmer 

Dwyer Preston 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1013 



65 



Here are the 


85 who are 


recorded 


for it: 


Anderson, J. 


Johnson, 


A. C. 


Reed 


Anderson, W. 


Johnson, J. T. 


Sanborn 


Bendixen 


Just 




Sawyer 


B jorge 


Klemer 




Schwartz 


Bjornson 


Kneeland 




Skartum 


Braatelien 


Larson 




Southwick 


Brown, W. W. 


Lee 




Spooner 


Burchard 


Lennon 




Stone 


Campbell 


Lindberg 




Sundberg 


Carlson 


Lundeen 




Swenson 


Child 


Lydiard 




Teigen 


Clementson 


McMartin 




Thornton 


Coates 


Marschalk 




Thorson 


Conley 


Moeller 




Vasaly 


Crane 


Morken 




Voxland 


Davis 


Nelson 




Walker 


Dunn, H. H. 


Nolan 




Warner, A. L. 


Dunn, R. C. 


Norton 




Warner, C. H. 


Finke 


Ofsthun 




Warner, E. 


Flowers 


Olien 




Wefald 


Frankson 


O'Neill 




Weld 


Frye 


Orr 




Wescott 


Greene 


Palmer 




Westlake 


H aff ten 


Peterson, 


A. B. 


Westman 


Hanson 


Peterson, 


A. J. 


Williams 


Harrison 


Peterson, 


P. A. 


Wilson 


Hillman 


Porter 




Mr. Speaker 


Hopkins 


Prince 






Holmberg 


Putnam 






This bill was so amended in the 


Senate as to allow 


the county commissioners together w 


ith the Sheriff and 


the County Attorney to grant 


road house lincenses where 


the town board 


should request that 


license be granted. 


The House refused to concur 


in the 


Senate amendment, 


and the bill died 


between the 


two Houses, the conference 


committee being unable to agree. 





Fourth Class City Bill. 

Another good bill in the interest of temperance and 
morality was the act that passed both houses almost 
unanimously allowing the people of fourth class Cities to 
vote upon the question of license or no license, and in- 
cluding both wholesale and retail dealers. It will now be 
possible for the people of any fourth class city to put 
an end to all liquor selling within the city limits. 

The Injunction and Abatement Bill. 

Senate File 68 — to enjoin and abate houses of lewd- 
ness, came up in the house on special order April 22, next 
to the last day of the session and furnished one of the 
most interesting and intructive contests of the entire 
session. 

The bill had passed the senate with little opposition, 
but the interested parties were not willing to let it pass 
the house so easily. 



6$ 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



Several amendments were offered, all of which were 
intended to make it easier for the owners of the prop- 
erty or the occupants, but these were all voted down. The 
vote on G. B. Brown's amendment requiring that all own- 
ers, lessees, occupants, etc., should be notified and al- 
lowed 30 days to abate the nuisance, is a fair example of 
the way the house lined up. 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Anderson, J. 


Harrison 


Pless 


Bendixen 


Healy 


Preston 


Borgen 


Henry 


Prince 


Bouck 


Hogenson 


Reed 


Brown, G. W. 


Just 


Ribenack 


Coates 


Kimpel 


Saggau 


Crane 


Knopp 


Seebach 


Crawford 


Lennon 


Steen 


Dindorf 


Lydiard 


Stoven 


Dunn, H. H. 


McGarry 


Sullivan 


Dunn, R. C. 


Minette 


Thielen 


Dwyer 


Moeller 


Thornton 


Elmer 


Nelson 


Virtue 


Ferrier 


Nimocks 


Vollmer 


Flowers 


Ofsthun 


Walker 


Fuchs 


O'Neill 


Wescott 


Greene 


Papke 


Westlake 


Hafften 


Peterson, P. A. 




Hanson 


Pfaender 




Those who 


voted in the negative 


were : 


Anderson, W. 


Johnson, J. T. 


Schwartz 


Bjorge 


Klemer 


Skartum 


Bjornson 


Knapp 


Southwick 


Braatelien 


Larson 


Stageberg 


Brown, W. W. 


Lee 


Stone 


Burchard 


Lindberg 


Swenson 


Campbell 


McMartin 


Teigen 


Carlson 


Marschalk 


Vasaly 


Child 


Morken 


Voxland 


Clementson 


Nolan 


Warner, A. L. 


Conley 


Norton 


Warner, C. H 


Davis 


Olien 


Warner, E. 


Finke 


Orr 


We f aid 


Frankson 


Palmer 


Weld 


Frye 


Peterson, A. B. 


Williams 


Hillman 


Peterson, A. J. 


Wilson 


Holmberg 


Putnam 


Mr. Speaker 


Hopkins 


Sanborn 




Johnson, A. C. 


Sawyer 





So the amendment was lost. 

Four other amendments of similar intent were offered 
and all voted down and then the bill passed by the fol- 
lowing vote: Yeas 88, nays 11: 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



67 



Those who 


voted in the affirmative 


were: 


Anderson, J. 


Holmberg 




Putnam 


Anderson, W. 


Hopkins 




Reed 


Bendixen 


Johnson, A. 


C. 


Ribenack 


Bjorge 


Johnson, J. T. 


Sanborn 


Bjornson 


Just 




Sawyer 


Braatelien 


Klemer 




Schwartz 


Brown, W. W. 


Knapp 




Seebach 


Burchard 


Kneeland 




Skartum 


Burrows 


Larson 




Southwick 


Campbell 


Lee 




Stageberg 


Carlson 


Lennon 




Stone 


Child 


Lindberg 




Teigen 


Clementson 


Lundeen 




Thornton 


Conley 


Lydiard 




Thorson 


Crane 


McMartin 




Vasaly 


Crawford 


Marschalk 




Vollmer 


Davis 


Minette 




Voxland 


Dunn, H. H. 


Morken 




Walker 


Elmer 


Nelson 




Warner, A. L. 


Ferrier 


Nimocks 




Warner, C. H. 


Finke 


Nolan 




Warner, E. 


Flowers 


Norton 




Wefald 


Frankson 


Ofsthun 




Weld 


Frye 


Olien 




Westlake 


Fuchs 


O'Neill 




Westman 


Greene 


Orr 




Williams 


Hanson 


Palmer 




Wilson 


Harrison 


Peterson, A. 


B. 


Mr. Speaker 


Henry 


Peterson, A. 


J. 




Hillman 


Peterson, P. 


A. 





Those who voted in the negative were: 
Bouck Moeller Saggau 

Coates Pfaender Steen 

Dindorf Pless Thielen 

Dunn, R. C. Prince 

Leaving 21 members not voting. 

It is probable that any public house of prostitution 
can be abated at any time, whenever any injured party 
sees fit to go into court and ask for a permanent restrain- 
ing order. 



m 



68 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

CHAPTER X. 
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 

Minnesota is a state of boundless natural resources. 
Her mines and forests, her quarries and clay beds, her 
prairies and hardwood timber lands, all taken together, 
make a most wonderful heritage; and, if this heritage had 
been properly conserved for the benefit of all the people, 
it is hard to place a limit to the number of men and women 
who might find here the raw materials of nature upon 
which to employ their labor, to built their homes, and to 
erect a civilization better and grander than any the world 
has ever known. 

But most of this wonderful heritage — the free gift of 
an all-beneficent nature — has fallen into private hands, 
and all that the people have left is the power of taxation. 
To be sure, this power can be used to restore to the people 
much of the value that inheres in these great natural 
resources; but many and great are the changes in our 
system of taxation necessary to bring about this result; 
and much time will be required to educate the people to 
see the need for such changes. 

And worst of all, those who have secured the private 
titles to the mines and the forests and the water powers, 
are in a position to use unlimited means to befuddle the 
issues, to prejudice the voters, and prevent the changes 
that must be made, so that our tax system shall encourage 
industry and thrift, instead of, as now, encouraging land 
grabbing and speculation. 

But small beginnings have already been made toward 
saving what is left of our great heritage, and the work 
is bound to go on. 

Four years ago Representative L. C. Spooner secured 
the passage of a bill to save to the state the beds of all 
navigable streams; and Representative H. H. Dunn, under 
suspension of the rules, put thru a bill to reserve to the 
state all minerals under lands hereafter to be patented to 
railways. 

During the session of 1913, Representative Spooner 
was untiring in his efforts to secure the passage of a bill 
to make surveys and determine the feasibility of a system 
of canals to utilize the waters of the state for power and 
navigation, which, if found practicable, would result in 
many millions of benefit to the people. 

It has been found that the Lake of the Woods is 87 
feet higher than the foot of Lake Traverse, and that a 
canal 240 miles long can be built along the eastern shore 
of the old Lake Agassiz without a single lock, the fall 
being only about 4 inches to the mile. 

This canal would cut off the streams that flow into 
the Red river, and divert their surplus waters into the 
Minnesota, giving it many hundreds of miles of naviga- 
tion, and making available more than 250,000 horse power 
to be used for the generation of electricity for light, heat 
and power purposes. 



The Minnesota Legislature of WIS 69 

This is a matter that should be very carefully worked 
out. The best engineering skill should be employed to find 
out as nearly as may be what our resources are and the 
best method for their development. Then the people will 
know what action to take. 

Public Lands. 

It is not enough to conserve and utilize our vast water 
power. 

We still have mineral lands, timber lands and farm- 
ing lands of vast value that should be so administered as 
to benefit all the people, and not simply a few speculators. 

Lands should be cleared and drained and roads built, 
and then compact settlement should be encouraged. 

The policy should be, not how fast we can sell off and 
get rid of our remaining natural resources, but how in- 
telligently and judiciously those resources can be admin- 
istered, not only for the benefit of the whole people who 
own them but also for the benefit of real settlers who 
desire to possess and use them. 



70 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

CHAPTER XL 
SOME ATTEMPTS THAT FAILED. 

Every session of the legislature is confronted with a 
vast flood of unwise and meddlesome legislation. 

Worse than this, a great deal of legislation is usually 
attempted of a positively dishonest and swindling char- 
acter, — laws granting special privileges to favored classes 
and depriving the common man of his inherent rights. 

The legislature of 1913 was probably the least guilty 
in this respect of any in the history of the state, but not 
entirely so. 

It is one thing to pass .a law and a very different thing 
to make it work; and it often works just as you don't 
want it to. 

It is one thing to see an evil, but a far more difficult 
thing to correct it by statute. 

It is fine to have good intentions, but we are told that 
they are used as pavement for a very disreputable place. 

Because a man is honest and sincere is no sure sign 
that he is either wise or clear-headed. 

Because a law is framed for the purpose of ending an 
evil, is no guaranty that the evil will promptly take its 
departure as soon as the law is signed by the governor. 

Every session of the legislature sees many laws of 
this kind passed, at considerable expense to the people in 
the time of members, and in waste of good paper and ink; 
and then the laws become dead letters or worse. If not 
worse, the people may be thankful. 

Several bills of this kind were up in one or both 
houses during the session of 1913, and some of them be- 
came laws. 

The Southwick Marriage Bill.. 

A very good example of ill advised attempts to remedy 
evils by law may be seen in the bill put thru the house by 
Representative Claude E. Southwick of Wells. 

Many people enter into hasty and ill-considered mar- 
riages. 

"We will remedy that evil," says Southwick, and so 
he provides, in his bill, that there must be a waiting of 
five days, after the license is issued, before the ceremony 
can be performed. 

Perhaps this might stop some hasty marriages, and 
perhaps not, but it certainly would open the door to any 
evil-minded man who wanted to take advantage of an 
ignorant girl, to first get the license and persuade the girl 
that all legal requirements had been met; live with the 
girl five days, as his wife, and then leave her to the tender 
mercies of society, perhaps with a child to rear, and the 
scorn of good people to endure. This is very difficult 
under the present law, as the ceremony is nearly always 
performed very soon after the license is issued. 

Here is another evil that would surely follow: 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 71 

The records of licenses issued are always open to the 
public. An enemy might want to make trouble. The op- 
portunities for blackmail and other vicious meddling 
would be greater than now, and would be sure to be em- 
ployed more than is now possible. 

Again some men with venereal diseases marry pure 
girls and infect them, thus injuring their health and prob- 
ably bringing diseased and defective children into the 
world. But is the remedy to be found in compelling all 
applicants for a license to marry to submit to a physical 
examination by a doctor, as this bill attempted to do? 
And doesn't every one know how easy it is for a doctor 
to be mistaken? Don't we all know how often venereal dis- 
eases are merely suppressed — not cured — to break out 
again whenever conditions are favorable? And doctors 
certificates are not hard to get if one has the necessary 
means. 

But the worse and. most dangerous feature of the bill 
was the provision abolishing the common law marriage. 

The common law marriage is the natural marriage. 
Every civilized and uncivilized people have recognized it 
from time immemorial; and it is everywhere a great safe- 
guard to innocent women and children, where the mar- 
riage has taken place in fact, but without acknowledgment 
before a legally constituted authority. 

The courts have always held such marriages legal, and 
the wife and children can inherit the property of the hus- 
band and father. The court records are full of cases 
where the common law marriage has saved a pure and 
honest wife from destitution and innocent children from 
pauperism. 

And in states where the common law marriage has 
been abolished by statute, the court records give us case 
after case where pure and innocent wives have been denied 
the right to any of the property their toil and self-denial 
had helped to earn and save, — left with little children to 
support, and to face their remaining years in poverty and 
destitution. 

But sometimes "bad women" try to use the common 
law marriage to get a part of the property of some old 
rounder who had died and left more money than charac- 
ter. 

"Well," says the Southwick Bill, "we will abolish the 
common law marriage, and then the "bad women" can no 
longer come into court and try to get a part of the prop- 
erty of the rich rounder, under the plea of being his 
common law wife." 

This is the very reason given by one sincere but mis- 
guided member, in explaining to friends why he voted for 
the Southwick Bill. Other members admitted that they 
voted for it because Southwick was a good fellow and they 
did not want to hold him up to ridicule. And then, of 
course, the senate would kill the bill anyway. 



72 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

The law should protect those who have innocently 
entered into this most sacred relation. It should recognize 
the fact of marriage — as the common law always has — 
rather than lay stress on the form or ceremony by which 
the fact is announced to the world. It should presume 
that children are "legitimate," not assume the contrary, 
and require them to show the marriage license of the 
father and mother. Perhaps the license has been lost, and 
all evidence of its existence with it. 

There are thousands of people today living together 
in common law marriage — : people just as honest, faithful 
and pure as are any people in the world. All these would 
be compelled by Southwick's bill to go before a priest, 
minister or magistrate and have a ceremony performed, 
in order that their marriage should hold in law and their 
children inherit their property. Isn't this perilously near 
to being retroactive? Such a law would also open wide 
the door to the, scorn and gossip of evil-minded people, 
who delight to make a scandal and create trouble when- 
ever they can. 

And isn't it true that the more requirements we make 
before people can become legally married, the greater 
number of people wil ignore all such requirements; and 
then, if we declare that natural, or common law marriage, 
shall have no standing in the courts, have we not multi- 
plied many fold the very evils we were trying to abate? 

Marriage — the real true love union of a man and a 
woman — is the purest and most sacred relation in all the 
world; and what we really need — what young men and 
women most need — is to be educated to look upon that 
relation in its true light, as the one most cherished hope 
and grandest consummation of life. 

And then, if we can so readjust our social and eco- 
nomic system that all can have a fair chance in the world, 
— that the masses shall not be legally robbed for the sup- 
port of a privileged class — then how easy it will be for 
men and women to respond to the strongest and purest call 
of their nature, free from the fear of poverty that now, 
more than anything else, prevents true marriage, and re- 
sults in the prostitution of the tenderloin on the one hand, 
and the equally destructive prostitution on the other that 
has grown up inside of legal marriage, namely: marriage 
merely to secure a home and support, tho love, the only 
reason for true marriage, may be wholly wanting. 

Making Artificial Criminals. 

Is it a crime to give away a street car transfer or to 
ride on one received from the original owner? Should a 
newsboy or a boot black or any other person be sent to the 
workhouse because he sold a transfer or gave it away 
instead of using it? And should the person who got a 
transfer in that way and then rode on it be branded as a 
criminal? Shall the police force of our cities be set to 
watching such transactions, and arresting people caught 
red-handed? 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 73 

Evidently Senator Denegre thinks so, or he would 
not have introduced and put thru the Senate a bill making 
it a misdemeanor to give away, or to receive and use, a 
transfer from any one except the "duly accredited agent 
of the Street Railway Co." 

Denegre also fathered Senate file 736, whch made it a 
misdemeanor "to be upon, go upon, or ride upon any 
railway train, car or engine, or any part thereof," unless 
you are a passenger or an employee. Nor could you walk 
along, or over, or upon any railway right of way without 
subjecting yourself to the same penalty. 

On the afternoon of the last day of the session, Repre- 
sentative Geo. H. Moeller, of St. Paul, attempted to put 
this street car transfer bill thru the house under suspen- 
sion of the rules. Lydiard of Minneapolis and Elmer of 
St. Paul tried to help it thru; but they were overwhelm- 
ingly defeated, largely thru the efforts of Bjornson of 
Lyon county and Lennon of Minneapolis. 

Bjornson declared that, when you have paid your 
nickel and received your transfer, that transfer is yours 
to do with as you please. You have a right to use it, to 
sell it, or to give it away, as you see fit. Such laws only 
play into the hands of a corporation that is getting a 
double price for every ride it gives. 

Lennon swore he would never support a bill that would 
set the police of the three great cities of the state to the 
task of arresting newsboys for selling transfers. 

Well, the bill did not pass, but the people ought to 
know the facts. Both Mayor Keller of St. Paul and Mayor 
Nye of Minneapolis were about the capitol a large part of 
the afternoon and evening, and Mayor Keller, at least, was 
openly lobbying for the bill. Bjornson was called out and 
urged to let up and allow the bill to pass. Also both Chiefs 
of Police, and several ordinary policemen were on hand to 
impress the members. Even threats were used that im- 
portant legislation would be held up if this bill were de- 
feated. But the members refused to be impressed, and the 
threats did not go far. 

The following is taken from the St. Paul Daily News: 

KELLER LOBBIES FOR STREET CAR CO. 

Mayor H. P. Keller appeared in a new role — at least 
in the open — when he ventured at the final business ses- 
sion of the legislature Wednesday night as a lobbyist for 
the street railway company. 

He met a stinging rebuke from Rep. Andrew Davis, 
Elk River, whom he sought to interest in favor of the com- 
pany, in the bill seeking to prohibit the use of transfers by 
anyone other than the person to whom transfers are issued 
by conductors. 

Rebuffed by Davis. 

"Who do you represent, the people or the street rail- 
way company?" Rep. Davis asked Mayor Keller, when the 
latter called him out of the house chamber, Rep. Davis 



74 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



being opposed to the passage of the transfer bill. "It ap- 
pears to me that this bill favors nobody but the company." 
Mayor Keller turned without a word at this "slam" 
and walked away. 

Admits Making Deal. 

To Rep. G. B. Bjornson, Minneota, Mayor Keller ad- 
mitted having made a deal with the street car company, 
six months ago, binding himself to support the transfer 
bill under the agreement that the company would agree to 
a law allowing policemen and firemen to make yearly con- 
tracts with the company for rides at lower than the regu- 
lar 5-cent fare. 

"Is it possible that you have to make such a deal with 
the street railway company in order to get your rights in 
this matter?" asked Rep. Bjornson. 

"It is a fact," replied the mayor, "and I have promised 
my support in favor of the transfer bill in the interests of 
the policemen of St. Paul." 

"Well, all I've got to say is that I will not vote for 
such a measure," replied Rep. Bjornson. 



Bill Not Passed. 

The bill was not taken up and died on the calendar. 
Get Concession Anyhow. 

The bill permitting policemen and firemen to make an- 
nual transportation contracts passed the senate just be- 
fore adjournment It passed the house several weeks ago 
and will now go to the governor. 

An Attempt to Restore the Death Penalty. 

Two years ago Representative McKenzie of Sibley 
county secured the passage of a bill doing away with the 
death penalty. There appeared to be some reaction from 
this position, and Representative Pless, who had defeated 
McKenzie for the Republican nomination in Sibley county 
in the fall elections, brought in a bill to allow the jury to 
decide whether death or imprisonment for life should be 
the penalty for murder in the first degree. In case of a 
confessed murderer the court was given the same power. 
The bill created considerable debate in the house, but was 
killed by the following vote: Yeas 49 and nays 51, as 
follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were: 



Borgen 




Perrier 


Lydiard 


Bouck 




Pinke 


McGarry 


Brown, G. 


W. 


Fuchs 


Nimocks 


Brown, W 


W. 


Greene 


Ofsthun 


Campbell 




Hanson 


O'Neill 


Carey 




Healy 


Papke 


Carlson 




Johnson, A. C. 


Pfaender 


Crane 




Just 


Pless 


Dindorf 




Kimpel 


Porter 


Dwyer 




Klemer 


Preston 


Elmer 




Lundeen 


Prince 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



75 



Reed Stageberg 


Virtue 


Ribenack Stoven 


Vollmer 


Sanborn Sullivan 


Westlake 


Sawyer Swenson 


Wilson 


Seebach Thielen 




Skartum Thornton 




Those who voted in the negative 


were: 


Anderson, W. Hopkins 


Peterson, A. J. 


Bendixen Johnson, J. T. 


Putnam 


Bjorge Knapp 


Schwartz 


Bjornson Kneeland 


Southwick 


Braatelien Knopp 


Steen 


Burchard Larson 


Stone 


Burrows Lee 


Sundberg 


Child Lennon 


Teigen 


Clementson Lindberg 


Vasaly 


Coates McMartin 


Voxland 


Davis Morken 


Walker 


Dunn, H. H. Nelson 


Warner, A. L. 


Dunn, R. C. Nolan 


Wefald 


Frankson Norton 


Weld 


Frye Olien 


Wescott 


Henry Orr 


Westman 


Hillman Palmer 


Williams 


So the motion was lost. 





Sterilizing Criminals and Others. 

The bill of G. W. Brown to permit the sterilization of 
certain inmates of our state institutions passed the house 
by a bare 61 votes and it was hard to get the required 
number. This includes the inmates of state prison, state 
reformatory, training school for boys, industrial school for 
girls, institutions for feeble minded, epileptics and insane. 

Section 1. Whenever the superintendent of any state 
prison, state reformatory, state training school for boys, 
state industrial school for girls, state school for feeble 
minded and colony of epileptics, or of any state hospital 
or state asylum for insane, shall certify in writing that 
he believes that the mental or physical condition of any 
inmate would be improved thereby, or that procreation by 
such inmate would be likely to result in defective or 
feeble minded children or children with criminal tenden- 
cies, and that the condition of such inmate is not likely 
to improve, so as to make procreation by such person de- 
sirable or beneficial to the community, it shall be lawful 
to perform a surgical operation for the sterilization of 
such inmate as hereinafter provided." 

Isn't this conferring a very dangerous degree of arbi- 
trary power? By what right may some men presume to 
decree the emasculation of their fellow human beings? 
But worst of all, is it fair or just to subject the boys and 
girls in the training schools of Red Wing and Sauk Center 
to the whim of a stupid or meddlesome superintendent? 
Every one knows that sterilization is destructive of manly 
vigor and womanly charm; and what shall we think of a 



76 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

system of training that would make it possible to violate 
the persons of men and women, boys and girls, simply 
because they had been found guilty of some offense that 
had resulted in their being shut up for a time in a state 
institution. What right have we to so increase the penalty 
for their wrong doing? 

In any case most criminals and defectives are the 
direct or indirect result of bad laws. At bottom society 
itself is to blame and not the individual criminal or de- 
fective, and now many legislators propose to wreak the 
vengeance of society on the innocent victims of their own 
stupidity. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 77 

CHAPTER XII. 
OTHER IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. 

In this history I have dealt mostly with measures of a 
vital nature, — measures that are present day issues, — 
measures that are to furnish the foundation upon which to 
build the better civilization of the future. 

But the legislature of 1913 did much important work 
of a different character, — much in the way of correcting 
faults in our statutes and improving the administration of 
the affairs of the state. 

Space will not permit a full discussion of all these 
measures, but we may refer to a few of them. 

Workman's Compensation. 

Mothers' Pensions. 

Minimum Wage for Women. 

Classification of property for purposes of taxation and 
the taxation of personal property at only 25% of its true 
value. 

Conferring on cities a greater degree of self-govern- 
ment. 

Extension of Civil Service. 

The five-sixths jury law in civil cases. 

Making it easier to bring actions against public service 
corporations. 

Prohibiting fraudulent statements in advertising mat- 
ter. 

Pure Seed law. 
Blue Sky law. 

Uniform Negotiable Instruments. 
Uniform Warehouse Receipts. 

Requiring true and correct branding of products and 
prohibiting imitation. 

Laws relating to dependent and delinquent children. 

The Dunn Good Roads law. 

County Tuberculosis Sanitaria. 

Regulating Dance Halls. 

Improving the Department of Labor. 

Forest Protection. 

Improving Drainage laws. 

The Garbo Election System. 

Interchangeable Family Mileage Books. 

Reserving minerals to the state in lands granted to 
railways. 

Establishing Minnesota Brand for butter, cheese, 
canned fruit and vegetables. 

Prohibiting misbranding of products. 

Regulating manufacture and sale of oleomargarine. 



78 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

Prohibiting use of food preservatives by • canners and 
dairies. 

Presidential Preference Primary law. 

Many acts more strictly regulating railways. 

Increasing safety of machinery. 

Improving public education. 

Extending the principle of special assessment for bet- 
terments. 

State insurance of public buildings. 

Improving standard weights and measures. 

Permitting voters who are away from home to send 
ballot by mail. 

These are perhaps the most important, but they are 
far from all. 

On the whole the legislature of 1913 was a conscien- 
tious, hard-working body of men, who did more for the 
real betterment of the public affairs of the state than can 
be said of any other legislature in its history. 






The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 79 

CHAPTER XIII. 
THE RECORDS OF THE MEMBERS. 

How shall the value of a legislator's work be esti- 
mated? 

What shall be the test? 

Is it enough when we can say that a man is honest 
and sincere? 

No; he must also be intelligent, broad-minded, far- 
seeing. 

Many an honest man has done much to promote bad 
legislation; much to help along injustice; much to estab- 
lish graft and greed and tyranny; much to enslave his 
fellow men — just because he was short-sighted, or be- 
cause his sympathies had been played upon, or his judg- 
ment obscured. 

Shall a man always represent his constituents? 

This is often a dangerous position to take. It is fre- 
quently impossible to know the wishes of his constituents. 
They may be misinformed. They may have heard but 
one side of the question. That side may have been pre- 
sented by interested parties. I do not think a repre- 
sentative should ever vote against his own highest con- 
victions on any question. If his people demand this of 
him, he can resign and leave them free to choose one 
who can vote in harmony with their views. Or he can go 
to his people and explain his position to them and abide 
by the verdict. 

There are certain fundamental principles that are 
fully established. The greatest possible liberty for each 
individual man and woman, the largest possible degree 
of home rule and local self government for each and ev- 
ery social unit, the confining of the activities of the state 
to matters of state wide interest only — these are matters 
regarding which there can be no honest difference of 
opinion among those who profess to favor democracy in 
government. 

We all profess to believe in the principles laid down 
in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments 
derive all their just powers from the consent of the gov- 
erned." That the people have the inherent right to make 
the laws by which they are to be governed, to amend 
them, to repeal them, — these, too, are truths to which all 
must assent or deny the fundamentals upon which our 
governments, national, state, local, profess to be founded. 
Men may honestly deny these principles, but if they do, 
they have no right to seek to be elected to help make or 
administer the laws in a democratic republic. 

But in the confusion of practical legislation, many 
honest men lose sight of these principles. Many men 
honestly vote wrong. But because they are honest, is no 
sign that they should be supported by the people whom 
they have honestly misrepresented. 

Certain measures that came before the legislature 
of 1913 furnish the best test of a man's qualifications to 
represent the people in a democratic republic like the 



80 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

state of Minnesota, and the way the members voted on 
these measures is the best criterion by which to estimate 
their work. 

There were several bills restoring to the people great- 
er control over their public affairs. On all these meas- 
ures I shall take the truly democratic side and shall allow 
the records of the members to speak for themselves. I 
shall impugn no man's motives nor his honesty, but shall 
simply report how he took sides and how he cast his 
ballot. 

I regard the following as the vital measures: 

I. The Initiative and Referendum. 

II. The Recall. 

III. Equal suffrage for women. 

IV. Amendments to the election laws making it eas- 
ier for the people to nominate and elect their public serv- 
ants. 

All these relate to the fundamental right of the peo- 
ple to make and amend their own laws. 

V. County Option in the matter of permitting the 
sale of liquor. 

VI. The Nolan Bill securing to each city and village 
the right to control their own public utilities. 

VII. The Wallace Bill in the Senate and the Gov- 
ernor's bill in the House that deprived cities and villages 
of this power and vested it all in the state to be admin- 
istered through an irresponsible commission appointed by 
the Governor, and entirely removed from" control by the 
people. 

VIII. The Cashman Bill to prohibit railway discrimi- 
nation. 

IX. The most vital test was the vote on the two 
vetoes. 

There were many other bills that would furnish val- 
uable hints as to the real democracy of members, but 
these here mentioned I regard as the most vital. 

So now you may read how the members have written 
their records in their votes on these bills. 

Representatives. 

JOHN ANDERSON, Sebeka, Wadena Co.— Merchant. 
Against equal suffrage; voted to spoil the Initiative and 
Referendum by prohibiting the circulation of petitions; 
against county option but supported other temperance 
measures; was for the Cashman bill and against the re- 
actionary public utility commission bill; one of four to 
vote against the conference report on the Initiative and 
Referendum; voted to override both vetoes. 

WALTHER ANDERSON, Badger, Roseau Co.— Banker 
and Merchant interested in co-operative enterprises; 
wealthy and naturally conservative. In the early part 
of the session he voted against the Initiative and Refer- 
endum, but later on his views changed and he heartily 
supported it on final passage; favored equal suffrage, 
oip joj isaans^era eou'eaeduiai jeqio pue uopdo A^unoo 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 81 

Cashman bill; against the state control of local public 
utilities; voted to override both vetoes. 

JOSEPH BARTEN, Belle Plaine, Scott Co.— Farmer. 
Was against equal suffrage; against effective Initiative 
and Referendum; against County option and all temper- 
ance legislation; voted for the Cashman bill and opposed 
all puritanitcal and meddlesome legislation; voted to 
override both vetos. 

C. M. BENDIXEN, Morgan, Redwood Co.— Farmer. 
Chairman of the grain investigating committee. Favored 
all fundamental legislation as equal suffrage, initiative, 
referendum, recall, Cashman bill, local self government 
for cities, personally favored County option but voted 
against it for local reasons, favored other temperance 
laws; voted to override the telephone veto but for rea- 
sons of patronage voted to sustain the veto of the Nolan 
bill. 

HENRY O. BJORGE, Lake Park, Becker Co.— Lawyer 
and Farmer. Author of the tonnage tax bill for which he 
worked untiringly; earnestly favored all progressive legis- 
lation as equal suffrage, initiative, referendum, recall, 
Cashman bill, county option and all temperance measures; 
favored home rule and local self government for cities 
and opposed the state control of local utilities. In general 
able, honest and fundamentally democratic on practically 
every question; voted to override both vetoes. 

GUNNAR B. BJORNSON, Minneota, Lyon Co.— Editor 
"Minneota Mascot." A clear thinker and able speaker, 
he strongly favored all progressive measures as equal suf- 
frage, County option and all temperance laws, initiative, 
referendum and recall; for the Cashman bill, and opposed 
to the state control of the city public utilities; for the 
Nolan bill; voted to override both vetoes; was the first 
to puncture the swindle of the street railway transfer bill. 

ANTON BORGEN, Duluth. — Retired property owner, 
against equal suffrage, county option and all temperance 
measures, initiative and referendum; did not vote on 
Cashman bill; against the reactionary public utilities bill 
and for Nolan Bill; voted to override the Governor's veto 
of> the telephone bill but was with the interests to sustain 
the veto of the Nolan bill. 

G. T. BRAATELIEN, Rothsay, Otter Tail Co.— Strong 
for all progressive measures, Initiative, Referendum and Re- 
call, county option and temperance laws, equal suffrage, 
Cashman bill, Nolan bill and against the reactionary Pub- 
lic Utility bill; a fearless member who often voted his 
convictions regardless of policy or popularity; voted to 
override both vetoes. 

CHARLES W. BOUCK, Royalton, Morrison Co.— Mer- 
chant and large land owner; voted against equal suffrage, 
county option and all temperance laws; opposed effective 
Initiative and Referendum; against Cashman bill; against 
reactionary Public Utility bill voted with the interests 
to sustain both vetoes. 

G. W. BROWN, Glencoe, McLeod Co. — Lawyer; strong 



82 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

opponent of all progressive laws, author of the Brown 
amendment to emasculate the Initiative and Referendum, 
against equal suffrage, county option and all temperance 
laws, for the reactionary Utility bill, favored the Cashman 
bill; was candidate for Speaker against the progressive 
elements in the house, and a leader of the extreme con- 
servatives all through the session: supported both the 
vetoes of the Governor. 

W. W. BROWN, St. James, Watonwan Co.— School 
teacher; was for equal suffrage, initiative and referen- 
dum, county option and all temperance measures, Cash- 
man bill, Nolan bill, and against the reactionary pub- 
lic utility bill, voted to override both vetoes. 

C. D. BURCHARD, Plainview, Wabasha County; 
favored equal suffrage, initiative and referendum, 
county option and all temperance measures, Cashman bill, 
Nolan bill and against the reactionary utility bill, voted to 
override both vetoes. 

G. W. BURROWS, Breckenridge, Wilkin Co.— Real es- 
tate and farm loan business, bank director, etc; favored 
equal suffrage, is recorded as not voting on the Brown 
amendment to destroy the Initiative and Referendum, was 
against county option, did not vote on the Road House bill, 
for the Cashman bill, did not vote on the reactionary 
utility bill, voted to override both vetoes. 

W. A. CAMPBELL, Minneapolis — Represents the Min- 
nehaha Falls district, traveling salesman; strong supporter 
of labor legislation, author of the Mothers' Pension bill, 
was for equal suffrage, county option and temperance laws, 
Initiative, Referendum and Recall, for the Nolan bill and 
against the reactionary utility bill, only city member to 
vote for the tonnage tax, against Cashman bill, voted to 
override both vetoes. 

HUBBARD CAREY, Adams, Mower Co. — General mer- 
chant; against equal suffrage, county option and temper- 
ance laws, for the Brown amendment to spoil the Initia- 
tive and Referendum, did not vote on the reactionary util- 
ity bill, for the Cashman bill and tonnage tax, general 
record strongly conservative, did not vote on either veto. 

CARL P. CARLSON, Morris, Stevens Co.— Farmer; 
voted for all fundamentally democratic measures, equal 
suffrage, Initiative, Referendum and Recall, county option 
and all temperance laws, Cashman bill, and against depriv- 
ing the cities of control of their own public utilities, also 
against both the reactionary vetoes. 

S. R. CHILD, Fourth Ward, Minneapolis — One of the 
clearest thinkers and hardest workers in the House; voted 
for every fundamentally democratic measure, only city 
member who had the courage to vote for the Cashman bill 
prohibiting railway discrimination, chairman of the Effi- 
ciency Committee which investigated the state depart- 
ments and made recommendations in the direction of effi- 
ciency and economy, was strongly against the reactionary 
public utility commission urged by the Governor and also 
voted to override both the reactionary vetoes. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 83 

JOHN CLEMENTSON, Erskine, Polk Co.— Farmer; 
voted for every fundamentally democratic measure, equal 
suffrage, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, county option and 
all temperance laws, Cashman bill prohibiting railway dis- 
crimination, for the Nolan bill and against the reactionary 
utility bill, and against both the reactionary vetoes. 

JOSEPH H. COATES, Sauk Rapids, Benton Co- 
Farmer, real estate dealer, lawyer; against county option, 
but favored other temperance measures, for equal suffrage, 
Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Cashman bill, for the Nolan 
bill and against the reactionary utility bill, and against 
both the reactionary vetoes. 

KERRY CONLEY, Rochester, Olmstead Co.— Manu- 
facturer of cameras and photographic supplies; earnestly 
supported equal suffrage, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, 
Cashman bill, county option and all temperance measures, 
for home rule and local self-government for cities and 
against the reactionary utility bill and both the reaction- 
ary vetoes, as chairman of the committee on legislative 
expenses, did much to economize the cost of the session 
and prevent petty graft in the furnishing of supplies. 

RALPH E. CRANE, Grand Meadow, Mower Co — 
Farmer; heartily supported all fundamentally democratic 
measures, as equal suffrage, Initiative, Referendum, Re- 
call, Cashman bill, county option and temperance laws, was 
for the Nolan bill and against the reactionary utility bill 
to deprive cities of home rule as to their public utilities, 
opposed both the reactionary vetoes. 

D. CRAWFORD, Lakefield, Jackson Co.— Banker and 
public official; against county option and temperance 
measures, favored the Brown amendment to kill the Initia- 
tive and Referendum, but voted for the bill on final passage, 
for equal suffrage, for the Cashman bill, for the Nolan bill 
and against the Governor's bill to deprive cities of home 
rule as to their public utilities, and was against both the 
reactionary vetoes. 

ANDREW DAVIS, Elk River, Sherburne Co.— Mer- 
chant; voted for all fundamental democratic measures, as 
equal suffrage, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, county op- 
tion and temperance laws, for the Nolan bill and against 
the Governor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to 
their public utilities, and was against both the reactionary 
vetoes. 

WM. E. DINDORF, St. Paul.— Advertising man; 
against equal suffrage, county option and all temperance 
laws, voted for the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative 
and Referendum, but was for the bill on final passage, for 
Nolan bill and against the reactionary utility bill, also 
against both the reactionary vetoes. 

H. H. DUNN, Albert Lea, Freeborn Co. — Lawyer; 
voted for the Brown amendment to spoil the Initiative and 
Referendum, opposed equal suffrage, against county op- 
tion, but for other temperance measures, took strong 
ground in favor of the Cashman bill, opposed the reaction- 
ary utility bill to deprive cities of the power to control 



84 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

their own public utilities, and opposed both of the vetoes, 
was author of the bill to save to the state the minerals in 
the unpatented railway land grant lands. 

R. C. DUNN, Princeton, Mille Lacs Co.— Editor 
Princeton Union; for equal suffrage, county option and 
temperance measures, and for the Cashman bill, voted for 
the Brown amendment to spoil the Initiative and Refer- 
endum and was one of seven to vote against the bill after 
the failure to spoil it, voted for the Governor's bill to de- 
prive the towns and cities of the control of their public 
utilities, author of the Dunn Good Roads bill, the merits of 
which are yet to be tested, opposed both the reactionary 
vetoes. 

JAMES DWYER, Minneapolis. — Ice business, member 
of the City Council for 12 years; against equal suffrage, 
against county option and all temperance measures, voted 
for the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and Refer- 
endum, but supported the bill on final passage, voted with 
Lennon, Lydiard and Nimmocks in favor of the reactionary 
bill to deprive the cities of all control over their public 
utility corporations, sustained the Governor's veto of the 
telephone bill but opposed the veto of the Nolan bill 

J. P. ELMER, St. Paul, Seventh Ward— Life insur- 
ance, from 1897 to 1909 in the employ of the Great West- 
ern Railway as city and general passenger agent; for 
equal suffrage, against county option and all temperance 
measures, for the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative 
and Referendum and against the bill on final passage, 
voted for the Governor's bill to deprive cities of all con- 
trol over their public utility corporations, he and Preston 
being the only Ramsey county men to vote for this bill, 
and even supported the veto of the Nolan bill, but voted 
against the veto of the telephone bill. 

JAMES FERRIER, St. Charles, Winona Co.— Farmer 
and blooded stock raiser; against equal suffrage, county 
option, and all temperance laws, for the Initiative and 
Referendum on every ballot, against the Cashman bill, and 
for the reactionary utility bill, but opposed both the vetoes. 

A. C. FINKE, Hills, Rock Co. — Banker and insurance; 
strong supporter of equal suffrage, county option and all 
temperance measures, Initiative, Referendum and Recall, 
for the Cashman bill, but supported the Governor's bill to 
deprive cities of home rule as to their public utilities, 
however, he opposed both the reactionary vetoes. 

H. H. FLOWERs, Cleveland, LeSueur Co.— Banker and 
postmaster; against equal suffrage and county option, but 
favored other temperance laws voted for the Brown 
amendment to kill the Initiative and Referendum, but sup- 
ported the bill on final passage, for the Cashman bill and 
against the reactionary utility bill and both the vetoes. 

THOMAS FRANKSON, Spring Valley, Fillmore Co- 
Lawyer and real estate dealer; strong supporter of all 
fundamental democratic measures, as equal suffrage, 
county option and temperance laws, Initiative, Referendum, 
Recall, Cashman bill, Nolan bill and opponent of the re- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



actionary utility bill, joint author with Henry O. Bjorge 
of the Tonnage Tax bill, opposed both the vetoes. 

P. H. FRYE, Kandiyohi Co. — Lawyer, farmer, member 
of co-operative elevator company and store; voted for all 
fundamental democratic measures, as equal suffrage, 
county option, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Cashman 
bill, Nolan bill, and against the reactionary utility bill de- 
priving cities of home rule as to their public utilities and 
was against both the reactionary vetoes. 

E. J. FUCHS, Second Ward, St. Paul— Druggist; op- 
posed equal suffrage, county option and all temperance 
laws, voted against the Brown amendment to kill Initiative 
and Referendum, and against the reactionary utility bill to 
deprive cities of home rule as to their public utilities, and 
against both the vetoes. 

T. J. Greene, St. Paul — Served four years as deputy 
clerk of court, two years as deputy sheriff, three terms in 
the legislature; did not vote on equal suffrage, against 
county option, but for the road-house bill, for the Brown 
amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, but voted 
for the bill on final passage, for Nolan bill and against the 
reactionary utility bill and both the reactionary vetoes. 

AUGUST HAFFTEN, Buffalo, Wright Co.— Officeholder 
for many years; against equal suffrage and county option, 
but for the road-house bill, voted for the Brown amend- 
ment to kill the Initiative and Referendum, but was for the 
bill on final passage, for Cashman bill, but voted for the 
reactionary bill to deprive cities of home rule in con- 
trolling their public utilities, supported the veto of the 
Nolan bill, but was against the veto of the telephone bill. 

ALEC HANSON, Lake Crystal, Blue Earth Co- 
Farmer; against equal suffrage and county option, but 
favored the road-house bill, voted for the Brown amend- 
ment to kill the Initiative and Referendum, for the Cash- 
man bill and against the reactionary utility bill, and was 
against both the reactionary vetoes. 

H. H. Harrison, Stillwater, Washington Co. — Civil 
engineer; strong supporter of equal suffrage, against 
county option but for other temperance laws, voted for the 
Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and Referendum, 
but was for the bill on final passage, against the Cashman 
bill and for the reactionary bill to deprive cities of home 
rule as to their public utilities, but was against both the 
reactionary vetoes. 

JOHN A. HEALY, Hibbing, St. Louis Co.— Hotel- 
keeper; voted for equal suffrage, but was against all other 
progressive measures, even to favoring the reactionary 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their public utili- 
ties and supported both of the reactionary vetoes. 

J. A. HENRY, Albany, Stearns Co. — Druggist; was 
against equal suffrage, county option and all temperance 
laws, voted for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative 
and Referendum, but was for the bill on final passage, was 
for the Cashman bill and Nolan bill and against the re- 
actionary bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their 
public utilities, was against both reactionary vetoes. 



86 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

N. S. HILLMAN, Two Harbors, Lake Co.— Railway 
engineer, only Socialist in the legislature; voted for all 
fundamental democratic measures, as equal suffrage, 
county option, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, is not re- 
corded on the Cashman bill, nor on the reactionary public 
utility bill, was against both reactionary vetoes. 

TOBIAS HOGANSON, Stewartville, Olmstead Co- 
Banker; was for equal suffrage, against county option, for 
the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, 
but for the bill on final passage, voted for the Governor's 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to public utilities, is 
not recorded on the Cashman bill, voted to sustain the 
Governor's veto of the Nolan bill, but was against the 
veto of the Minnette-Holmberg telephone bill. 

N. J. HOLMBERG, Renville, Renville Co.— Farmer; 
strong advocate of all fundamental democratic and pro- 
gressive measures, as equal suffrage, county option, Initia- 
tive, Referendum, Recall, Cashman bill, Nolan bill and 
against the Governor's bill to deprive cities of home rule 
as to public utilities. As chairman of the elections com- 
mittee was active and influential in favor of all progres- 
sive election laws, was against both reactionary vetoes. 

FRANK HOPKINS, Fairfax, Renville Co.— Lawyer; 
took strong ground in favor of the Brown amendment to 
prohibit the circulation of petitions and kill the Initiative 
and Referendum, but supported the bill on final passage; 
favored equal suffrage, opposed county option, but fav- 
ored other temperance laws; was author and champion of 
a bill to reduce licenses to a nominal fee, and thus re- 
move the temptation to vote for license for the sake of 
the money it brought in; supported the Cashman bill; 
voted for the Governor's public utility commission bill to 
deprive cities of home rule as to their public utilities, but 
also voted to pass the Nolan bill and the Minnette-Holm- 
berg bill over the Governor's veto. 

A. C. JOHNSON, Houston, Houston Co.— Farmer and 
stock raiser; supported every fundamental democratic and 
progressive measure, as equal suffrage, county option, 
Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Cashman bill, Nolan bill, 
Minnette-Holmberg bill, etc., and opposed the reactionary 
Governor's bill, and voted to overturn the Governor's veto 
on both bills. 

J. T. JOHNSON, Fergus Falls, Otter Tail Co.— Drug- 
gist; voted for all fundamental democratic and progressive 
measures, as equal suffrage, county option, Initiative, Ref- 
erendum, Recall, Cashman bill, Nolan bill, Minnette-Holm- 
berg bill; against the Governor's public utility commis- 
sion bill to deprive cities of home rule as to public utilities; 
voted to override the Governor's veto of the Minnette- 
Holmberg bill, but, for some reason, supported the veto of 
the Nolan bill, supposedly because of patronage obligation 
to the Governor. 

N. A. JUST, Rapidan, Blue Earth Co. — Farmer and 
real estate dealer; against equal suffrage; against county 
option, but favored anti-roadhouse bill, did not vote on the 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 87 

Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, but 
voted for the bill on final passage; for the Cashman bill, 
against the Governor and for the principle of home rule on 
all the public utility bills. 

GERHARD KIMPEL, Young America, Carver Co.— Re- 
tired farmer; opposed all fundamental democratic and pro- 
gressive measures, as equal suffrage, county option and 
temperance laws, Initiative, Referendum, Recall; voted for 
the Governor's public utility commission, and to sustain the 
veto of the Nolan bill. The only exceptions to this course 
were his support of the Cashman bill and his vote to over- 
ride the veto of the Minnette-Holmberg bill. 

P. L. KLEMER, Faribault, Rice Co.— President 
Faribault Woolen Mill Co.; supported all fundamental 
democratic and progressive measures, as equal suffrage, 
county option and temperance laws, Initiative, Referendum, 
Recall, Cashman bill, Nolan bill, Minnette-Holmberg bill 
and opposed the reactionary Governor's bill and vetoes. 

C. T. KNAPP, Chisholm, St. Louis Co.— Lawyer; for 
equal suffrage; against county option but for anti-road- 
house bill and other temperance measures; for Initiative, 
Referendum and Recall; as chairman of the committee on 
general legislation, he fathered the public utility commis- 
sion bill to deprive cities of local self-government as to 
their public utilities, but voted to override the Governor's 
veto on both the Nolan bill and the Minnette-Holmberg 
bill. 

THOMAS KNEELAND, Fifth and Sixth Wards, Mpls — 
Lawyer; favored equal suffrage, county option and temper- 
ance laws, Initiative, Referendum and Recall, Nolan and 
Minnette-Holmberg bills, and voted to pass them both over 
the Governor's veto; opposed the Governor's bill to de- 
prive cities of home rule as to their public utilities. Mr. 
Kneeland took a deep interest in the conservation and 
efficient management of the public domain of the state and 
did faithful work in committee and on the floor of the 
house. 

SAMUEL KNOPP, Winona, Winona Co. — Farmer; 
against equal suffrage, county option and temperance 
laws; against the Cashman bill, favored the Governor's 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their public utili- 
ties, and upheld the Governor's veto of both the Nolan and 
Minnette-Holmberg bills. 

ADOLPH S. LARSON, Sandstone, Pine Co.— Merchant; 
supported all fundamental democratic and progressive 
measures. As author of the equal suffrage bill, Mr. Lar- 
son made a strong plea for the rights of women; voted for 
the Cashman bill; was against the Governor's bill to de- 
prive cities of home rule as to their public utilities, and 
voted to pass both the Nolan and Minnette-Holmberg bills 
over the veto. 

J. F. LEE, Annandale, Wright Co. — Farmer; supported 
all fundamental democratic and progressive measures, as 
equal suffrage, county option and temperance laws, Initia- 
tive, Referendum, Recall, Cashman bill; opposed the Gov- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



ernor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their pub- 
lic utilities, and voted to pass both the Nolan and the 
Minnette-Holmberg bills over the veto. 

JOHN LENNON, Fifth and Sixth Wards, Minneapolis 
— Traveling salesman; strongly opposed to most fundamen- 
tal, democratic and progressive measures, but did vote to 
override the Governor's veto on the Nolan bill; opposed 
equal suffrage and county option, but voted for the anti- 
roadhouse bill; voted for the Governor's bill to deprive 
cities of home rule as to their public utilities, and sup- 
ported the veto of the Minnette-Holmberg bill, also voted 
for the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and Refer- 
endum. 

R. J. LINDBERG, Henning, Otter Tail Co.— Druggist 
and banker; supported all fundamental democratic and 
progressive measures, — equal suffrage, county option and 
temperance laws, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Cashman 
bill, Nolan Bill and Minnette-Holmberg bill, but voted to 
sustain the Governor's veto of the Nolan bill, supposedly 
because of political obligation to the Governor. 

EARNEST LUNDEEN, Minneapolis— Lawyer; received 
considerable support as a candidate for speaker against 
Henry Rines, and made a hard fight for a committee on 
committees; supported all progressive measures except 
county option, and opposed the reactionary bill to deprive 
cities of home rule as to their local utilities; voted to 
override both reactionary vetoes; was author of the Presi- 
dential preference primary bill, state insurance bill; was 
co-author of the Lundeen-Sunberg bill regulating dance 
halls and prohibiting sale of liquor in, around, or in con- 
nection with public dance halls; author of the bill that 
permits a whole family to ride on one mileage book; 
worked hard for a good workman's compensation bill, 
and tried to substitute the Wisconsin law for the bill 
that passed. 

L. A. LYDIARD, Minneapolis, Eighth and Thirteenth 
Wards and some county towns — Opposed every demo- 
cratic, and progressive measure even to sustaining the 
Governor's veto of both the Nolan bill and the Minnette- 
Holmberg bill; was one of only two in the House to 
vote against the Recall on final passage; opposed county 
option but voted for anti-roadhouse bill; favored the Gov- 
ernor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their pub- 
lic utilities. 

PATRICK H. McGARRY, Walker, Cass Co.— According 
to his biographical sketch furnished for the Blue Book, 
"he resides at Walker where he has business interests;" 
opposed every fundamental democratic and progressive 
measure even to supporting the Governor's veto of the 
Nolan bill and the Minnette-Holmberg bill, and favored the 
Governor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their 
public utilities. 

FINLAY McMARTIN, Claremont, Dodge Co.— Farmer 
and stock breeder; favored every fundamental, democratic 
and progressive measure, and opposed all reactionary bills. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 



PAUL MARSCHALK, Warroad, Roseau Co.— Engaged 
in commercial fishing on Lake of the Woods; was in favor 
of all fundamental, democratic and progressive measures 
except the Cashman bill; for equal suffrage, county option 
and temperance laws, Initiative, Referendum, Recall; was 
against the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and 
Referendum; against the Governor's bill to deprive the 
cities of local self-government as to their public utilities, 
and voted to pass both the Nolan bill and Minnette-Holm- 
berg bills over the veto. 

PRANK E. MINNETTE, Sauk Center, Stearns Co- 
Interested in farming and general business; represents a 
very conservative constituency; opposed equal suffrage, 
county option and all temperance measures; voted for the 
Brown amendment to prohibit the circulation of petitions 
and thus kill the Initiative and Referendum, but favored 
the bill on final passage, also favored the Recall; was for 
the Cashman bill and the tonnage tax; made a hard fight 
for the telephone bill and against the Governor's bill to 
deprive cities of home rule as to their public utilities; 
voted to override both vetoes. 

GEO. H. MOELLER, Fifth Ward, St. Paul— With the 
Corning Advertising Agency; for equal suffrage; against 
county option, but favored other temperance laws; was 
against the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and 
Referendum; did not vote on the Governor's bill to deprive 
cities of home rule as to their public utilities; sustained 
the Governor's veto of the telephone bill, but voted to pass 
the Nolan bill over the veto. 

T. T. MORKEN, Crookston, Polk Co.— Lawyer and 
Judge of Probate; voted for all fundamental, democratic 
and progressive measures, as equal suffrage, county option, 
anti-roadhouse bill, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Nolan 
bill, telephone bill, etc., and against all reactionary and 
meddlesome laws, voted to pass both the Nolan bill and 
the telephone bill over the Governor's veto and opposed 
the Governor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to 
their public utilities. 

NELS E. NELSON, Alexandria, Douglas Co.— Farmer 
and holder of County offices; for equal suffrage, but voted 
against county option after being committed to it both by 
his party and his personal pledge; voted for the Brown 
amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum; for Cash- 
man bill, but against the tonnage tax; voted for the Gov- 
ernor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their pub- 
lic utilities, but voted to pass both the Nolan bill and the 
telephone bill over the Governor's veto. 

FRANK E. NIMMOCKS, Fourth Ward, Minneapolis- 
No occupation given; strong against equal suffrage and 
county option; voted for the Brown amendment to kill 
Initiative and Referendum; for the Governor's bill to de- 
prive cities of home rule as to public utilities; voted to 
sustain the veto of the telephone bill, but is not recorded 
on the veto of the Nolan bill. 

W. I. NOLAN, Thirteenth Ward, Minneapolis — Humor- 



90 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

ous lecturer; as chairman of the rules committee, and rec- 
ognized floor leader of the progressive democratic forces 
of the House Mr. Nolan gave very able and effective sup- 
port to all the progressive legislation of the session, and 
opposed with equal force everything reactionary. As 
author and champion of the Nolan bill to give cities con- 
trol over their own public utilities he made an able fight 
to pass his bill over the Governor's veto, and to defeat the 
Governor's bill to deprive cities of home rule as to all 
their local public utilities. 

W. I. NORTON, Second and Ninth Wards, Minneapolis 
— Lawyer and attorney for Anti-Saloon League; active 
leader of temperance forces in the house, favored all 
fundamentally, democratic and progressive measures, and 
opposed all reactionary bills like the Governor's bill to de- 
prive cities of home rule as to local utilities; voted to 
override both the reactionary vetoes. 

T. T. OFSTHUN, Glenwood, Polk Co.— Lawyer; chair- 
man of the committee on Taxes and Tax Laws; favored 
equal suffrage, county option, Initiative, Referendum and 
Recall, tonnage tax; was against Cashman bill for local 
reasons; voted first for the Governor's bill to deprive cit- 
ies of home rule as to local public utilities, but afterward 
voted to pass both the Nolan bill and the telephone bill 
over the Governor's reactionary veto. 

ANDREW OLIEN, Clarksfield, Yellow Medicine Co.— 
Farmer and merchant; favored all fundamental, demo- 
cratic and progressive measures and opposed everything 
of a reactionary character, as the Governor's bill to de- 
prive cities of home rule as to their local public utilities; 
voted to pass both the Nolan bill and the telephone bill 
over the veto. 

D. P. O'NEILL, Thief River Falls, Pennington Co- 
Farmer; was for equal suffrage, county option and tem- 
perance laws and most progressive measures, but voted 
for the Brown amendment to prohibit the circulation of 
petitions and supported the Governor in his reactionary 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to local utilities and 
even supported the veto of the Nolan bill. 

CHAS. N. ORR, Midway District, St. Paul— Lawyer; 
was strong in his support of all fundamental, democratic 
and progressive measures, and vigorously opposed every- 
thing reactionary like the Governor's bill to deprive cities 
of home rule as to local public utilities, and his vetoes of 
the telephone bill and the Nolan bill. As chairman of 
the Ramsey county delegation and the Judiciary Commit- 
tee of the House Mr. Orr was a very influential member. 

F. L. PALMER, Second and Ninth Ward, Minneapolis 
— Real estate, loans and insurance; favored all funda- 
mental, democratic and progressive measures, as equal suf- 
frage, county option, Initiative, Referendum, Recall, Nolan 
bill, Minnette-Holmberg bill, and opposed the Governor's 
reactionary bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their 
local public utilities and both the vetoes. 

JOHN PAPKE, Waseca, Waseca Co. — Farmer; op- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 91 

posed equal suffrage, county option and temperance laws; 
was for the Brown amendment to kill the Initiative and 
Referendum, and supported the Governor's reactionary 
veto of the Nolan bill, but voted against the Governor's 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to local public utili- 
ties, and against the veto of the telephone bill. 

A. B. PETERSON, Twin Valley, Norman Co.. .Farmer; 
favored county option and temperance laws, but opposed 
equal suffrage and the Initiative and Referendum, being 
one of four to vote against the bill on final passage by 
voting against the report of the conference committee; 
voted against the Governor's reactionary bill to deprive 
cities of home rule as to their local public utilities, and 
was against both reactionary vetoes; was for the Cash- 
man bill and tonnage tax. 

A. J. PETERSON, DAWSON, Lac qui Parle Co.— 
Banker; supported all fundamental democratic measures 
as equal suffrage, county option, Initiative, Referendum 
and Recall, Nolan bill, telephone bill, and was against the 
Governor's reactionary bill to deprive cities of home rule 
as to their local public utilities and against both reaction- 
ary vetoes; was for the Cashman bill and the tonnage tax. 

P. A. PETERSON, Emmons, Freeborn Co. — Farmer; 
voted for equal suffrage, against county option but for 
other temperance laws; favored the Brown amendment to 
prohibit the circulation of petition and thus kill the Initia- 
tive and Referendum; was for the Cashman bill and the 
tonnage tax; was against the Governor's reactionary bill 
to deprive cities of home rule as to their local public utili- 
ties and against the veto of the telephone bill; but sup- 
ported the veto of the Nolan bill; was strongly opposed to 
all sumptuary and meddlesome legislation. 

ALBERT PFAENDER, New Ulm, Brown Co. — Lawyer; 
against equal suffrage and county option; voted for the 
Brown amendment to prohibit the circulation of petitions 
and thus destroy the value of the Initiative and Referen- 
dum; was for the Cashman bill; made a good fight against 
the Governor's reactionary bill to deprive cities of home 
rule as to their local public utilities, and was against both 
the reactionary vetoes, and against all sumptuary and 
meddlesome legislation. 

ERNEST C. PLESS, Gibbon, Sibley Co.— Miller; was 
elected against MacKenzie, who had been a leader of the 
anti-temperance forces two years before; was against equal 
suffrage, county option, and all temperance laws, was for 
the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, 
for Cashman bill, the reactionary public utility bill and 
the veto of the Nolan bill, but voted against the veto of 
the telephone bill. 

MILES PORTER, Mankato, Blue Earth Co.— Lawyer; 
strong supporter of all fundamental, democratic and pro- 
gressive measures, and against everything reactionary; 
was sick during the last part of the session and unable to 
be in his seat. 

J. J. PRESTON, Ninth Ward, St. Paul— Stone mason; 



92 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

against equal suffrage, county option and other temperance 
measures; for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and 
Referendum; for the reactionary public utility bill, but 
against both reactionary vetoes. 

T. H. PRINCE, So. St. Paul, Dakota Co.— General 
contractor and officeholder; was for equal suffrage, against 
county option, but favored other temperance laws ; against 
Cashman bill and against the reactionary public utility 
bill, and opposed both reactionary vetoes. 

H. A. PUTNAM, Battle Lake, Otter Tail Co.— Farmer; 
favored every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure, and opposed everything reactionary except the 
veto of the Nolan bill, which he voted to sustain under 
great pressure from the Governor the same as two other 
members from the same county; chairman temperance 
committee and did excellent work. 

GEO. D. REED, Faribault, Rice Co.— Fuel business and 
officeholder; against equal suffrage and county option; for 
the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum; 
for Cashman bill, did not vote on the reactionary public 
utility bill, opposed the veto of the telephone bill, but sup- 
ported the veto of the Nolan bill. 

E. R. RIBENACK, Duluth — Hotel-keeper; against 
equal suffrage and county option; for the Brown amend- 
ment to kill the Initiative and Referendum, but was 
against the reactionary public utility bill and against both 
vetoes. 

H. A. SAGGAU, Ceylon, Martin Co. — Implement dealer 
and stock buyer; against equal suffrage, county option and 
temperance laws; for the Brown amendment to kill Initia- 
tive and Referendum, and then voted twice against the 
bill, one of seven on final passage in the House and one of 
four against the conference report; was for the reactionary 
public utility bill and for both vetoes but voted for the 
Cashman bill. 

JOHN B. SANBORN, Midway District, St. Paul— Law- 
yer; for equal suffrage, county option and all other pro- 
gressive measures, except that he voted for the Brown 
amendment to kill the Initiative and Referendum; was 
against the reactionary public utility bill and both vetoes. 

C. L. SAWYER, Fifth and Sixth Ward, Minneapolis- 
Real estate dealer; favored every fundamental, democratic 
and progressive measure and opposed everything reaction- 
ary, especially the Governor's public utility bill to deprive 
cities of self-government as to their local public utilities, 
and opposed the two reactionary vetoes. 

MARTIN SCHWARTZ, Ottawa, LeSueur Co.— Farmer; 
opposed county option, but favored other temperance laws; 
did not vote on equal suffrage; was for the Cashman bill 
and the tonnage tax; against both reactionary vetoes, but 
is not recorded on the Governor's reactionary public util- 
ity bill. 

FRED SEEBACH, Red Wing, Goodhue Co.— Held va- 
rious public offices for many years; against equal suffrage, 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 93 

county option and temperance laws, Cashman bill and ton- 
nage tax; for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and 
Referendum; against the reactionary public utility bill and 
both vetoes. 

K. G. SKARTUM, Lake Benton, Lincoln Co. — Drugs, 
books, etc. ; voted for every fundamental, democratic and 
progressive measure and opposed everything reactionary, 
especially the Governor's utility bill and the two vetoes. 

CLAUDE E. SOUTHWICK, Wells, Faribault Co.— 
Lawyer and large owner of farm lands; for equal suffrage, 
county option and temperance laws; voted for the Brown 
amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, for Cash- 
man bill, against the reactionary utility bill, and the veto 
of the telephone bill, but supported the veto of the Nolan 
bill; author of a drastic bill regulating marriage and abol- 
ishing common law marriages. 

L. C. SPOONER, Morris, Stevens Co. — Lawyer and 
large land owner; voted for every fundamental, democratic 
and progressive measure, and opposed everything reaction- 
ary; took special interest in the conservation of our natural 
resources and in saving to the people our water power, for- 
ests, mineral lands, etc. ; author of the bill to classify 
property for purposes of taxation, and to tax homes and 
industries at a lower rate than mineral land, timber land, 
etc. Near the close of the session was sick for some time, 
and hence his vote is not recorded on some important 
measures. 

N. A. STAGEBERG, Zumbrota, Goodhue Co.— Farmer; 
opposed equal suffrage and county option, but was for 
other temperance laws, for Cashman bill and the tonnage 
tax; favored the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and 
Referendum, but opposed the Governor's reactionary util- 
ity bill and both vetoes. 

HENRY STEEN, Winona, Winona Co.— Salesman; 
against equal suffrage and county option, but for other 
temperance laws; against the Brown amendment to kill 
Initiative and Referendum; did not vote on Cashman bill 
nor tonnage tax, voted for the reactionary public utility 
bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their local utilities, 
but did not vote on either veto, because he was laid up 
with rheumatism. 

W< T. STONE, Park Rapids, Hubbard Co.— Homeo- 
pathic doctor; strong supporter of every fundamental, 
democratic and progressive measure, and opponent of all 
things reactionary, especially the public utility bill and the 
two vetoes. 

A. C. STOVEN, Sixth Ward, St. Paul— Lawyer; for 
equal suffrage; against county option and temperance 
laws; for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Ref- 
erendum; opposed the reactionary public utility bill and 
both vetoes. 

M. J. SULLIVAN, Third Ward, Minneapolis— Stone 
contractor; against suffrage, county option and temperance 
laws; for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Ref- 



94 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

erendum, but opposed the reactionary utility bill and both 
vetoes. 

VICTOR SUNDBERG, First Ward, St. Paul— Drug- 
gist; favored all fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measures and opposed both the reactionary vetoes and the 
reactionary utility bill. 

OSCAR A. SWENSON, Nicollet R. 2, Nicollet Co- 
Farmer; against equal suffrage and county option, but for 
other temperance laws; for the Brown amendment to kill 
the Initiative and Referendum; for Cashman bill and ton- 
nage tax; opposed the reactionary public utility bill and 
both vetoes. 

A. F. TEIGEN, Montevideo, Chippewa Co. — Farmer; 
voted for every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure, and opposed everything reactionary; greatly in- 
terested in legislation for the benefit of farmers, active 
worker on the grain investigating committee, where he 
proved the value of velvet chaff wheat. 

W. H. THEILEN, First Ward, Minneapolis— Printer; 
against equal suffrage, county option and temperance laws, 
for the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referen- 
dum but opposed the reactionary utility bill and both 
vetoes. 

J. M. THORNTON, Fifth Ward, St. Paul— Contractor ; 
for equal suffrage ; against county option, but favored other 
temperance laws; for the Brown amendment to kill Initia- 
tive and Referendum; was against the reactionary utility 
bill and both vetoes. 

JULIUS THORSON, Benson, Swift Co.— Banker; for 
equal suffrage; against county option, but favored other 
temperance laws; for Initiative, Referendum, Recall and 
all progressive measures; for the Cashman bill but against 
tonnage tax; against the reactionary utility bill and both 
vetoes. 

LOUIS VASALY, Little Falls, Morrison Co. — Lawyer; 
for every fundamental, democratic and progressive meas- 
ure and against every attempt at reactionary legislation. 

LEONARD VIRTUE, Blooming Prairie, Steele Co- 
Farmer; against equal suffrage, county option and temper- 
ance laws; did not vote On the Brown amendment; for the 
Cashman bill and against the tonnage tax; voted for the 
reactionary utility bill and to sustain both reactionary 
vetoes. 

H. B. VOLLMER, Stillwater, Washington Co.— 
Farmer; against equal suffrage, county option and tem- 
perance laws, Cashman bill and tonnage tax; for the 
Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum, and 
for the reactionary utility bill, but did not vote on either 
veto. 

GEO. H. VOXLAND, Kenyon, Goodhue Co.— Farmer; 
voted for every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure and against everything reactionary; only Prohi- 
bitionist in the House. 

ISAAC F. WALKER, Princeton, R. 3, Isanti Co.— For 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 95 

equal suffrage, but against county option and most tem- 
perance measures; for the Brown amendment to kill In- 
itiative and Referendum; against the Cashman bill and 
tonnage tax; for the reactionary utility bill and both 
vetoes. One of seven to vote against Initiative and Refer- 
endum on final passage. 

A. L. WARNER, Duluth — Real estate dealer; for equal 
suffrage, county option and temperance laws; for the 
Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum; 
against the reactionary utility bill and both vetoes. 

C. H. WARNER, Aitkin, Aitkin Co. — Banker, lawyer, 
real estate; for all fundamental, democratic and progres- 
sive measures; against both reactionary vetoes, but at 
first favored the reactionary utility bill. As chairman of 
the reapportionment committee brought in a very fair bill 
and secured a very good reapportionment. 

ELIAS WARNER, Lamberton, Cottonwood Co- 
Farmer; for all fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measures and against everything reactionary, except that 
under pressure from the Governor he did not vote on 
either veto. 

KNUD WEFALD, Hawley, Clay Co.— Retail lumber 
dealer; for every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure and against everything reactionary, especially the 
reactionary utility bill and the two vetoes. 

BURT WELD, Slayton, Murray Co. — Banking and real 
estate; for every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure and against all reactionary bills as the utility bill 
and the two vetoes; against the Cashman bill for local 
reasons. 

W. H. WESTCOTT, St. Paul, Dakota Co.— Farmer; 
against equal suffrage and county option, but favored 
some other temperance laws; for the Brown amendment 
to kill the Initiative and Referendum; for the Cashman 
bill and for the reactionary public utility bill; did not 
vote on the vetoes. 

E. J. WESTLAKE, Fifth and Sixth Ward, Minneapolis 
— Insurance; against equal suffrage and county option; for 
the Brown amendment to kill Initiative and Referendum; 
against the reactionary utility bill, but did not vote on 
either veto. 

L. O. WESTMAN, Litchfield, Meeker Co. — Farmer; 
for all fundamental, democratic and progressive measures, 
and against the reactionary utility bill and the veto of the 
telephone bill, but for the veto of the Nolan bill. 

M. W. Williams, Lanesboro, Fillmore Co. — Merchant; 
for every fundamental, democratic and progressive meas- 
ure and against all reactionary bills like the utility bill 
and against the two vetoes. 

J. W. WILSON, Third and Tenth Wards, Minneapolis- 
Grocer; for all fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measures and against everything reactionary. 

Speaker Henry Rines, Mora, Kenabec Co. — Editor 
Times; nominated speaker as choice of the progressive 



96 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913' 

element of the House and finally elected with only 19 
votes against him; organized the committees to do the 
work laid out by the best progressive and fundamentally 
democratic sentiment of the state; made a capable and 
popular presiding officer, always faithful to the trust he 
assumed when he took the speakership and always active 
in the interest of honesty, efficiency, economy and 
progress. 

THE SENATE. 

In the senate the situation was somewhat different. 

The equal suffrage bill furnished a vital test and the 
rejection of the bill after it had passed the house was 
quite unprecedented and served to strongly emphasize the 
test. 

The attempt to take the committees away from Burn- 
quist was a decidedly reactionary move but did not get 
much support. 

About the most vital test of all, so far as country 
members were concerned was the vote sustaining the two 
vetoes of the Nolan bill and the Telephone bill. Though 
a few country members yielded to the pressure and voted 
to sustain the vetoes, their general record was democratic 
and progressive. The city members were solid against 
the vetoes. 

But they were also practically solid against the Cash- 
man Anti-Discrimination bill — local conditions are power- 
ful. 

On the Initiative and Referendum the test was on the 
proposition to make it hard to amend the constitution. 

On the Recall bill the test came on the attempt to save 
the judges. 

So far as election laws were concerned there were two 
reactionary attempts — both of which failed — one to keep 
county officers partizan and the other to cut out second 
choice voting at the primaries. 

On Temperance and Moral measures there was no 
clear line up. The Coller amendment that spoiled the 
Anti-Roadhouse bill was adopted without roll call, and the 
question of county option in the licensing of the sale of 
liquor did not reach the senate at all. 

In their votes on these questions the senators have 
made their own records. 

J. J. AHMANN, Torah, Stearns Co. — Merchant and 
banker; voted to sustain both reactionary vetoes, to make it 
hard to amend the constitution by initiative, to cut second 
choice out of the primary bill; against equal suffrage on 
every ballot; opposed taking committees away from Burn- 
quist; favored non-partisan county officers, and the recall; 
for the Cashman bill. 

B. N. ANDERSON, Hartland, Freeborn Co. — Farmer; 
favored the recall and Cashman bill, but on all the other 
questions was consistently opposed to progressive measures. 

S. B. BEDFORD, Rushmore, Nobles Co. — Banker; 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 97 

voted for every fundamental, democratic and progressive 
measure and against everything reactionary. 

H. N. BENSON, St. Peter, Nicollet Co.— Lawyer; voted 
to sustain the veto of the Nolan bill and did not vote on 
the question of partisan county offices, but was otherwise 
on the progressive side. 

JAMES P. BOYLE, Eveleth, St. Louis Co.— Lawyer; 
against the Cashman bill and voted to make it hard to 
amend the Constitution by initiative, but in general was a 
very strong advocate of progressive measures. 

GEO. C. CARPENTER, Buffalo, Wright Co.— Merchant 
and local Republican leader; for the Cashman bill, but 
against every other progressive and for all reactionary 
measures. 

THOMAS E. CASHMAN, Owatonna, Steele Co.— Presi- 
dent Clinton Falls Nursery Co.; author of the Cashman 
Anti-Discrimination bill, a quiet, persistent worker; for 
every progressive measure and against all reactionary at- 
tempts. 

H. W. CHEADLE, Duluth— Real estate, formerly City 
Clerk; against the Cashman bill; against equal suffrage on 
every ballot, tho he voted for equal suffrage two years be- 
fore; opposed easy amendment to the Constitution by initia- 
tive, but opposed all other reactionary measures. 

FRANK CLAGUE, Lamberton, Redwood Co.— Lawyer; 
voted to sustain the veto of the Nolan bill; against the 
Cashman bill; voted to cut second choice out of the pri- 
mary law, but generally favored progressive measures and 
opposed reactionary ones. 

JULIUS A. COLLER, Shakopee, Scott Co.— Lawyer; 
for the Cashman bill; against the Nolan veto and against 
making county officers partizan, but was generally opposed 
to progressive measures like equal suffrage, recall, etc., and 
favored most of the reactionary attempts, as taking com- 
mittees away from Burnquist, sustaining veto of telephone 
bill, cutting out second choice from primary bill, rejecting 
equal suffrage and was one of eight against the Recall on 
final passage. 

C. F. COOK, Austin, Mower Co. — Real estate and in- 
surance; favored every important progressive measure and 
opposed every reactionary one. 

L. O. COOKE, Kellogg, Wabasha Co.— Farmer and Re- 
publican party leader; consistently favored every reaction- 
ary move and opposed all progressive measures; one of 
eight against Recall on final passage. 

O. G. DALE, Madison, Lac qui Parle Co. — Banker; op- 
posed every reactionary move and voted for all progressive 
measures. 

JAMES D. DENEGRE, St. Paul— Lawyer; against tak- 
ing committees away from Burnquist; voted to sustain the 
Nolan veto, but to override the telephone veto; was for 
equal suffrage, but against recall of judges and against 
easy amendment of the Constitution by initiative; against 
second choice at primary, but is not recorded on the ques- 



98 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

tion of partizan county officers. Mr. Denegre introduced 
and put thru the senate a bill to make it a crime to tres- 
pass on the property of a railway company and also mak- 
ing it a crime to accept and use a street car transfer ex- 
cept from the conductor. Both these bills were killed in 
the house. 

C. R. DONALDSON, Stewart, McLeod Co.— Merchant; 
favored Cashman bill, and the Recall including judges, also 
non-partisan county officers, but supported both the re- 
actionary vetoes; voted to take the committees away from 
Burnquist, to cut out second choice at the primaries, to 
make it hard to amend the Constitution by initiative, and 
was against equal suffrage on every ballot. 

S. B. DUEA, Ruthton, Pipestone Co.— Banker; voted 
for the Cashman bill, for equal suffrage and the recall in- 
cluding judges; was against taking committees away from 
Burnquist, but supported both reactionary vetoes; favored 
partisan county officers, and voted to make it hard to 
amend the Constitution by initiative; did not vote on the 
question of second choice at primaries. 

W. W. DUNN, St. Paul — Vice President and attorney 
for Hamm Brewing Co.; voted for every reactionary at- 
tempt and against all progressive measures; one of four 
to vote against conference report on recall. 

F. A. DUXBURY, Caledonia, Houston Co.— Lawyer; 
voted for the Cashman bill; against the veto of the tele- 
phone bill; against the attempt to make it hard to amend 
the constitution by initiative, but favored all other reac- 
tionary attempts, as taking committees away from Burn- 
quist, supporting the Nolan veto, partisan county officers, 
no second choice, against recall of judges, and against equal 
suffrage on every ballot, tho he had voted for equal suf- 
frage two years before. 

W. S. DWINNELL, Minneapolis — Lawyer, membei 
American Bar Association, officer and director in various 
corporations; voted for partisan county officers, against re- 
call of judges, and against easy amendment of Constitution 
by initiative; otherwise opposed reactionary attempts and 
favored progressive measures. Led the fight to pass the 
Nolan bill over the veto. 

JAMES T. ELWELL, Minneapolis — Real estate dealer 
and large land owner; was against recall of judges md 
against easy amendment of the Constitution by initiathe, 
but otherwise favored all progressive measures and o »posed 
all reactionary ones. 

M. L. FOSSEEN, Minneapolis — Lawyer; against easy 
amendment of the Constitution by initiative, but otherwise 
favored all progressive measures and opposed all reaction- 
ary ones. 

S. J. FROSHAUG, Benson, Swift Co.— Physician; only 
prohibitionist in the senate; opposed every reactionary at- 
tempt and favored all progressive measures; especially in- 
terested in temperance laws and the establishment of 
tuberculosis sanitaria. 

F. S. GLOTSBACH, Faribault, Rice Co.— Pharmacist; 






The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 99 

was for the Cashman bill and recall including judges; 
against taking committees away from Burnquist, but was 
strongly opposed to equal suffrage and voted to sustain 
both the reactionary vetoes. 

C. J. GUNDERSON, Alexandria, Douglas Co.— Lawyer; 
strongly favored all progressive, temperance and moral 
measures and opposed everything reactionary. 

D. M. GUNN, Grand Rapids, Itasca Co. — Hotelkeeper; 
voted for every reactionary proposition and against every 
progressive measure; was one of eight to vote against re- 
call on final passage. 

J. M. HACKNEY, St. Paul— Lawyer; President Hack- 
ney Land Co. and Hackney Manufacturing Co.; strongly 
and actively against equal suffrage on every ballot; against 
easy amendment of the Constitution by initiative, but other- 
wise favored progressive measures and opposed reactionary 
attempts. 

JAMES HANDLAN, St. Paul— Meat business; opposed 
taking committees away from Burnquist; was against par- 
tisan county officers; opposed equal suffrage on every bal- 
lot; favored recall including judges, but voted to sustain 
both reactionary vetoes; did not vote on the Cashman bill 
nor on the second choice, and is not recorded on the amend- 
ment to the initiative to make it hard to amend the Con- 
stitution. 

A. L. HANSON, Ada, Norman Co. — Farmer and banker; 
voted every time for progressive measures and always 
against everything reactionary. 

JULIUS E. HAYCRAFT, Madelia, Watonwan Co.— Law- 
yer; voted for every progressive measure and against every 
reactionary one. 

C. D. JOHNSON, Brainerd, Crow Wing Co.— Druggist; 
was against the Cashman bill; against equal suffrage on 
every ballot, tho he voted for it two years ago; against the 
recall of judges; in favor of such reactionary measures, as 
taking the committees away from Burnquist, sustaining 
both vetoes, cutting out second choice at primaries, and 
making it hard to amend the Constitution by initiative. 

V. L. JOHNSON, Center City, Chisago Co.— Lawyer; 
favored every progressive measures except Cashman bill 
and opposed every reactionary one. 

JAMES JOHNSTON, Bertha, Todd Co.— Farmer and 
stock breeder; did not vote on taking committees away 
from Burnquist; favored Cashman bill and recall includ- 
ing judges, but otherwise opposed equal suffrage and 
other progressive measures and favored both reactionary 
vetoes and other similar measures. 

CHARLES H. KLEIN, Chaska, Carver Co.— Brick 
manufacturer; opposed Cashman bill, equal suffrage, recall 
of judges, and favored all reactionary attempts except the 
taking of committees away from Burnquist. 

O. A. LENDE, Canby, Yellow Medecine Co. — Lawyer; 
a strong, intelligent and able supporter of every progres- 
sive measure, and opponent of everything reactionary. 



100 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

N. A. L'HERAULT, Minneapolis — Lawyer; against 
equal suffrage, recall of judges, second choice at primaries, 
and easy amendment of Constitution by initiative, but op- 
posed taking committees away from Burnquist, opposed 
the Nolan veto, opposed partisan county officers, but voted 
to sustain telephone veto. 

M. J. McGRATH, Winona — Farmer; opposed equal suf- 
frage and the Cashman bill but was otherwise in favor of 
all progressive measures, and against reactionary ones. 

CHAS. S. MARDEN, Barnesville, Clay Co.— Lawyer; 
was for the Cashman bill, for recall including judges, for 
second choice at primaries, and against taking committees 
away from Burnquist; but voted to reject the equal suf- 
frage bill when it came from the house; voted to sustain 
both the reactionary vetoes and for partisan county officers. 

JOHN MOONAN, Waseca, Waseca Co. — Lawyer; ably 
advocated every progressive measure and opposed all reac- 
tionary attempts except that he voted to sustain both vetoes. 

FRANK MURRAY, Bird Island, Renville Co.— Lawyer; 
voted to take committees away from Burnquist and for 
every other reactionary attempt except that he is not re- 
corded on the question of partisan county officers and sec- 
ond choice at primaries; was against equal suffrage, recall 
of judges, easy amendment of Constitution by initiative; 
supported both vetoes and introduced a state-wide public 
utility bill to deprive cities of home rule as to their public 
service utilities, but voted for the Cashman bill. 

S. A. NELSON, Lanesboro, Fillmore Co. — Banker and 
merchant; favored every progressive measure and opposed 
every reactionary attempt except to make county officers 
partisan. 

C. W. ODELL, Wilmar, Kandiyohi Co.— Banker; fav- 
ored all progressive measures and opposed everything re- 
actionary except the two vetoes of the Nolan bill and the 
telephone bill. 

A. C. OLSON, Windom, lives in Jackson Co. — Farmer; 
favored Cashman bill, recall of judges, opposed taking com- 
mittees away from Burnquist, the telephone veto and the 
attempt to cut out second choice at the primary, but fav- 
ored Nolan veto, partisan county officers and the attempt to 
make it hard to amend the Constitution by initiative; op- 
posed equal suffrage on every ballot, tho he voted for it 
two years ago. 

J. W. PAULY, Minneapolis — Cigor manufacturer; op- 
posed equal suffrage, second choice at primaries, and easy 
amendment to Constitution by initiative; favored recall in- 
cluding judges, and non-partisan county officers; opposed 
taking committees away from Burnquist and voted to over- 
ride both reactionary vetoes. 

E. P. PETERSON, Litchfield, Meeker Co. — Lawyer; 
favored all progressive measures and opposed every reac- 
tionary attempt except the two vetoes, which he voted to 
sustain. 

A. A. POEHLER, Henderson, Sibley Co.— General mer- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 101 

chandise, grain and stock; favored the Cashman bill, recall 
including judges, and favored taking committees away from 
Burnquist; opposed equal suffrage on every ballot, and sup- 
ported both reactionary vetoes and to make it hard to 
amend the Constitution by initiative. 

T. M. PUGH, Duluth — Grain and produce commission 
business; voted against every progressive measure and in 
favor of every reactionary attempt except to take the com- 
mittees away from Burnquist. 

F. E. PUTNAM, Blue Earth, Faribault Co. — Lawyer; 
voted to sustain the Nolan bill veto, to make it hard to 
amend Constitution by initiative, and against recall of 
judges, otherwise for all progressive measures and against 
reactionary attempts. 

A. J. ROCKNE, Zumbrota, Goodhue Co.— Lawyer; 
against Cashman bill, equal suffrage on every ballot, and 
recall of judges; favored partisan county officers, amend- 
ment to cut out second choice at the primaries, and to make 
it difficult to amend Constitution by initiative; opposed 
taking committees away from Burnquist, and voted to 
override both reactionary vetoes. 

EDWARD RUSTAD, Wheaton, Traverse Co. — Lawyer 
and banker; voted for every progressive measure and 
against every reactionary attempt. 

OLE 0. SAGENG, Dalton, Otter Tail Co.— Farmer; 
only Populist in the senate; author of the equal suffrage 
bill; voted for every progressive measure and against all 
reactionary attempts. 

JOHN SAUGSTAD, Climax, Polk Co.— Farmer; chair- 
man of committee to investigate brewery owned saloons; 
voted for every progressive measure and against all reac- 
tionary attempts. 

ALBERT SCHALLER, Hastings, Dakota Co.— Lawyer; 
voted to sustain both reactionary vetoes, to cut out second 
choice at primaries, and to make it hard to amend the 
Constitution by initiative; but otherwise stood for progress 
and against reaction. 

A. T. STEBBINS, Rochester, Olmstead Co.— Hardware 
merchant; voted against every progressive measure, and 
for every reactionary attempt except that he voted for 
recall of judges. 

GEO. H. SULLIVAN, Stillwater, Washington Co.— Law- 
yer; active leader of reactionary element; supported and 
voted for every reactionary attempt, and was against all 
progressive measures; one of eight against the recall bill 
on final passage, and one of four against conference report 
for recall. 

JOHN D. SULLIVAN, St. Cloud— Lawyer ; attorney for 
G. N. Ry.; against all progressive measures, and in favor 
of every reactionary move except to take the committees 
away from Burnquist; one of eight to vote against the re- 
call on final passage. 

B. E. SUNDBERG, Kennedy, Kittson Co.— Large 



102 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

farmer; voted for every progressive measure except the 
Cashman bill, and against every reactionary attempt. 

C. J. SWANSON, Fridley, Anoka Co.— Brick and tile 
manufacturer; voted for every reactionary attempt except 
to take committees away from Burnquist, and against every 
progressive measure, even to voting against recall on final 
passage. 

F. J. THOE, Hayfield, Dodge Co.— Farmer; favored all 
progressive measures and opposed every reactionary at- 
tempt except to make county officers partisan. 

PETER VAN HOVEN, St. Paul— Meat packer and poli- 
tician; opposed equal suffrage, and voted for all reactionary 
attempts except to take committees away from Burnquist 
and make county officers partisan. 

CARL L. WALLACE, Minneapolis — Lawyer; opposed 
equal suffrage on every ballot, against recall of judges; fav- 
ored reactionary amendments to primary law, but opposed 
taking committees away from Burnquist; introduced the 
extremely reactionary public utility bill that deprived all 
cities of the control of their local public utilities and gave 
everything into the hands of the corporations; was sick 
all the last half of the session and thus his record is blank 
on the two vetoes, but it is supposed he would have voted 
to override them. 

HARRY F. WEIS, LeSueur, LeSueur Co.— Banker; op- 
posed equal suffrage on every ballot, against the Cashman 
bill, favored recall of judges; opposed the reactionary 
amendments to the primary law, but voted to sustain both 
reactionary vetoes and to take the committees away from 
Burnquist. 

GEO. P. WILSON, Minneapolis — Lawyer; voted to take 
the committees away from Burnquist, to cut out second 
choice at primaries, to make it hard to amend the Consti- 
tution by initiative, to exempt judges from recall and was 
one of eight to vote against recall on final passage in the 
senate, and one of four to vote against adoption of confer- 
ence report on recall. On the other hand he voted to over- 
ride both reactionary vetoes, against partisan county offi- 
cers; for equal suffrage on every ballot, and was the only 
city senator to vote for the Cashman bill. 

S. D. WORKS, Mankato, Blue Earth Co.— Real estate 
and lumber ; voted in favor of every reactionary attempt 
except the two amendments to the primary law to cut out 
second choice and make county officers partisan; voted 
against recall on final passage and was one of four to vote 
against the conference report on recall; against the Cash- 
man bill and against equal suffrage on every ballot. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 103 






APPENDIX I. 

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL HOUSE GRAIN INVESTI- 
GATING COMMITTEE. 

To the Speaker and the House of Representatives of the 
State of Minnesota: 

Your committee, appointed under resolution of January 
21, 1913, to investigate the organization, management, con- 
trol, and methods of doing business of any and all cor- 
porations or co-partnerships and of every person in any 
manner engaged in the business of buying and selling or 
handling of grain or live-stock products in the State of 
Minnesota, and into the details in every respect whatsoever 
referring to the State board of grain inspection and its 
methods of procedure and of doing business, authorized by 
such resolution to employ counsel to assist the committee 
in the examination of witnesses and of books and papers 
and other instruments of evidence in the matter of this in- 
vestigation and to assist in the preparation of its report on 
the conclusion of such investigation; this committee, con- 
sisting of C. M. Bendixen (chairman), A. F. Teigen, Martin 
Schwartz, D. P. O'Neill and Frank Hopkins, respectfully 
make the following report: 

James Manahan was employed as counsel for the com- 
mittee and public hearings were held in the capitol at St. 
Paul, as well as at Minneapolis and Duluth, at which repre- 
sentatives of all parties interested appeared in person and 
by attorney. 

The rules, by-laws, and reports of the Minneapolis 
Chamber of Commerce and of the Duluth Board of Trade, 
together with many letters from shippers, statements and 
tabulations prepared by commission merchants and elevator 
companies, and the rules, reports, and statistical tables 
prepared by the railway and warehouse commission re- 
garding the inspection and moving of grain, were received 
in evidence and considered in connection with the testi- 
mony of a large number of witnesses, who testified as 
shown by the transcript of such testimony submitted here- 
with in connection with the exhibits offered in evidence as 
a part of this report. 

Your committee thoroughly investigated the manner 
in which grain received at the terminal markets of Minne- 
apolis and Duluth is sampled, inspected, and marketed, tak- 
ing the testimony of samplers, inspectors, and officers of 
the railway and warehouse commission and of the State 
board of appeals, officers of the Chamber of Commerce of 
Minneapolis and Duluth Board of Trade, managers of ter- 
minal elevator companies and commission merchants, pit 
traders and independent dealers, as well as a large number 
of country elevator men, managers of farmers' co-operative 
concerns, representatives of the American Society of Equity, 
and farmers. 

We find that the grain markets of Minneapolis and Du- 
luth handle the bulk of the grain produced in the North- 
west. The business of buying and selling grain at each 



104 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

of these terminals is well organized, and the commission 
men generally have adopted a method of promptly and ac- 
curately reporting all trades made by them. There seems 
to be no opportunity or inclination for individual traders 
on these markets to engage in any practice detrimental or 
unfair to either the shipper or receiver of grain, but in 
certain respects conditions have prevailed which your com- 
mittee considers unsatisfactory and tending to burden the 
producers and to some extent the general public, and re- 
garding these conditions we find and recommend as follows: 
Committee's Recommendations. 

First. The Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis and 
the Board of Trade of Duluth are voluntary associations 
organized under the general laws, and consisting of a lim- 
ited number of members elected by the board of directors 
of these associations under rules which at the same time 
confer upon such board of directors substantially absolute 
control over the admission of new members. 

The number of members is limited, but any member 
may own an unlimited number of memberships. Notwith- 
standing the tremendous increase in the grain business of 
the Northwest, the number of members of the chamber of 
commerce has not been enlarged for more than 10 years 
past. 

Your committee therefore recommends that the State 
should assert and have sufficient control over the internal 
management of these associations to insure at all times 
freedom of the market from any possibility of control by 
any combination (should such combination be attempted) 
and recommends that the by-laws and rules of such asso- 
ciations should be so made and enforced that the general 
officers and directors and membership committees should 
be elected by the full membership by secret ballot, and that 
all nominations for such officers should be made by a suit- 
able primary system. 

Your committee also recommends that suitable rules 
and by-laws be adopted to enable an applicant for admission 
to membership to such associations to appeal from an ad- 
verse decision by the board of directors to the vote of the 
membership at large, and your committee further recom- 
mends that such legislation be enacted as will enable such 
applicant to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction in 
any case where he is arbitrarily denied admission to such 
associations. 

Rules Criticized. 

Second. The following rules of these associations your 
committee believes are arbitrary and objectionable: 

(a) Upon violation of any rule, regulation, or cus- 
tom of the association any member may be punished by a 
fine, suspension, or expulsion from the association by vote 
of the board of directors only. 

(b) Another rule provides that members cannot bid 
against each other for carload lots on track at country 
points. This rule makes such bids absolutely noncompeti- 
tive, which your committee believes is against the best 
interests of producers and shippers. 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 105 

Your committee believes and recommends that all 
secrecy as to the doings and rules of the Chamber of Com- 
merce of Minneapolis and the Duluth Board of Trade should 
be eliminated so far as that may be done without unduly 
disclosing what may be termed private business relations 
of the members of these associations. Publicity is the 
greatest possible corrective of all public evils, and your 
committee believes that publicity in this would result in a 
wholesome improvement in matters referred to as well as 
strengthening of public confidence in the doings and prac- 
tices of said Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce and Du- 
luth Board of Trade. 

Third. Your committee also finds that for a number 
of years a private price list bureau has been operated with 
officers in the Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis, and witl? 
access to the floor, and in close relation with the quotation 
committee of said chamber. The business of this private 
price list bureau is to furnish subscribers at country points 
a daily card showing what purports to be the price on 
grain at the local station where such card is sent and as a 
guide to buyers at such station, which price card is based 
upon the closing prices of that date at the terminal mar- 
kets, with freight charges and what is supposed to be. a 
reasonable margin of profit deducted. Under this practice 
this card is sent to subscribers at the various stations upon 
the theory that the prices quoted may be changed at any 
station whenever any subscriber at that station desires to 
pay more for the grain than is quoted by the card itself. 
The prices quoted on this card are generally followed at 
country points by the buyer, and on account of the recog- 
nition of the right of the buyer at any station to raise the 
price as given on these cards sent to that station it has 
often been used to crush out competition. We believe that 
this grain bulletin should be substituted by a public agency, 
and that the railroad and warehouse commission should 
be authorized and directed to adopt suitable rules and take 
the necessary steps to send daily price cards to all sub- 
scribers willing to pay therefor, showing on a uniform basis 
the prices that are being paid at the terminals and that 
may be paid at the country stations after allowing for 
freight and a uniform and reasonable margin of profit. 

Switching Charges. 

For years the members of the Chamber of Commerce 
of Minneapolis have imposed an arbitrary charge of $1.50 
switching charge upon every car of grain handled at Min- 
neapolis. This charge has been imposed under authority 
of the association and was made to appear to be justified 
on the ground that it was an "average" of the charges 
actually imposed by the railroads for switching services. 
As a matter of fact, the statistics of the railroad and ware- 
house commission show the charge to be in excess of the 
average imposed by the railroads. 

Moreover, according to the testimony adduced before 
this committee, Minneapolis is the only grain terminal in the 
United States where a switching charge is charged against 
the shipper; and, as was admitted by witnesses before your 



106 The Minnesota Legislature of 1918 

committee, this arbitrary charge of $1.50 a car has been 
assessed annually upon thousands of cars which actually 
paid no switching charge whatsoever. Consequently, this 
excessive and unjust switching charge has been an unfair 
burden inflicted upon the grain growers of the State, and 
your committee therefore recommends: 

Fourth. Legislation that will abolish these unfair 
switching charges against grain marketed at Minneapolis 
and that the railroad and warehouse commission make, 
and enforce such regulations as will secure to shippers and 
consigners of grain at terminal market at Minneapolis a 
free switching service to any industry located in said city. 

Fifth. Under the law of Minnesota, corporations are 
permitted to transact business with subsidiary corporations 
when the dealings are fair, and, as a result, the buying and 
selling of grain by commission merchants at terminal mar- 
kets to their own subsidiary companies has been practiced 
to a considerable extent, generally with the knowledge and 
consent of the customer, in some instances where no such 
consent has been obtained. We think this is an unwise 
practice and one which, if continued, would afford oppor- 
tunity for abuse; and we therefore recommend legislation 
to prevent the sale of any sort of product or grain by any 
broker or commission merchant to any company, with or 
without the consent of its consignor, in which such broker 
or commission merchant has any interest, either direct or 
indirect. 

Selling to Subsidiaries. 

That this custom of selling grain to subsidiary com- 
panies is recognized by the chamber of commerce to be an 
unwise custom, likely to be abused, is shown by the fact 
that the board of directors of said chamber of commerce 
during this investigation has made and adopted a rule for- 
bidding any member to sell or buy consigned grain to or 
of a subsidiary company, whether the consent of the con- 
signor has been obtained or not. 

Sixth. A large part of the business at the terminal mar- 
ket is closely connected with what is known as future trad- 
ing. The operations in the "pit," so-called, and the prices 
listed from similar future markets at other terminal points, 
like Chicago, to a very large extent fix the prices paid for a 
car of wheat on its arrival at Minneapolis, as the same is of- 
fered for sale by and inspected on the floor of the trading 
room in the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis and the 
Duluth Board of Trade. It is claimed that this so-called 
future market serves a useful purpose by permitting what 
is known as "hedging" and what may be termed invest- 
ment by those who wish to speculate and are competent 
to assume and carry the commercial risk of a change in 
prices between the gathering and distribution of the crops. 
It also appears evident from the testimony adduced before 
your committee that there are some small investors and 
poorly informed speculators who are not financially able to 
incur such risk and who do not know enough about the 
business to justify their dealings in futures, and they 
should be protected against this inclination toward gam- 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 107 



bling so far as such protection is possible. We therefore 
recommend: 

(a) Such rules and legislation as will confine dealing 
in futures to the "hedging" of grain and grain products 
actually bought and sold to investors who are ready, will- 
ing, and able to carry the burden of the purchase or sale 
as a straight investment on a reasonable margin. 

(b) That brokers' offices for future dealings in grain 
should be confined to cities of the first class and to the 
principal place of business of such brokers, who should be 
prohibited from operating branch offices in the same city 
where the principal office is located. 

(c) That the initial margin required of investors in 
futures be not less than 10 cents per bushel on lots of less 
than 5,000 bushels. 

Apparently recognizing the evils of this indiscriminate 
speculating in futures, the chamber of commerce directors 
during the closing days of March, 1913, passed a resolution 
instructing the officials of the chamber of commerce to en- 
ter into correspondence with the officials of other grain ex- 
changes throughout the country and arrange if possible so 
as to require the purchasers of futures to comply with the 
conditions recommended above. It was admitted by the 
officials of the chamber of commerce before this committee 
that if these rules were generally adopted by grain ex- 
changes of the country it would go far to eliminate the 
gambling element in future transactions and would at the 
same time practically prevent the small, inexperienced, 
and financially unfit speculators from undertaking to carry 
the burden of speculative risk involved in future transac- 
tions. At the same time, we wish to affirm that we believe 
any transaction in futures is legitimate and commendable, 
where the parties engaged have an actual purchase or sale 
to hedge or protect, and where by reason of experience, 
business sagacity, and ample means they are fitted to en- 
gage in such business. 

Seventh. It is the opinion of your committee that the 
State board of appeals is, under the present law, too inti- 
mately connected with the railroad and warehouse com- 
mission and too restricted in its operations to enable it to 
fully and satisfactorily perform the duties imposed on it 
by law. Your committee would therefore recommend that 
legislation be enacted that would make the State board of 
appeals an independent body in fact as well as in name and 
confer upon it such authority as will enable it to provide 
for the necessary help and facilities for carrying on its 
work in the most thorough and efficient manner possible. 

Inspection Commended. 
Eighth. The railroad and warehouse commission has 
perfected a system of sampling and inspecting grain well 
designed to protect producer and consumer and secure uni- 
formity and stability of grades. Under the rules and prac- 
tices that have prevailed in the grading and inspecting de- 
partment of the board of appeals and the railroad and 
warehouse commission, the reliability of the grades shipped 
in Minnesota are recognized by markets of the world gen- 



108 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

erally. Producers everywhere know that the grain they 
buy on Minnesota inspection will not fall below the grade 
designated. But your committee believes that the desire of 
the boards and departments to maintain this reputation 
for its grading has unconsciously led them to an unneces- 
sary severity in grading grain on its arrival at the ter- 
minal markets from country points, and that the terminal 
elevators and mills at the terminal markets have, by tak- 
ing advantage of the right to mix and blend wheat, secured 
large quantities of newer, inferior, and no grade wheat art 
prices that were lower than the producers should receive; 
and it is the belief of your committee that an absolute 
separation of the board of appeals from the regular grain- 
inspection department will result in a more efficient check 
on the first inspection and thus secure more exact justice 
to the producer without in any degree lowering what is 
known the world over as "Minnesota grades." In connec- 
tion herewith, it should be borne in mind that what is 
known as "Minnesota grades" is established on the grading 
of the wheat out of the terminal elevators, and not on the 
wheat arriving at these terminals from the country eleva- 
tors. Consequently the price received by the producer is 
not based on the severe grading of wheat on its arrival 
from the country, but is based on the more lenient grading 
out of the terminals; and to the extent that these two 
grades differ, to that extent the producers are deprived of 
what is justly due them. 

The testimony adduced before your committee proved 
that what is known as no-grade wheat is lowered from the 
higher grades principally because it is presumed to contain 
a percentage of moisture exceeding the limit for safe stor- 
age, but testimony adduced would tend to prove that under 
the present method of inspection it is a mere matter of 
guess as to whether wheat, being somewhat damaged, 
should be placed in the no-grade class or in the class of 
the higher grades. As the difference in price between No. 
1 northern and no-grade wheat is considerable, ranging all 
the way from 5 to 15 cents per bushel, your committee be- 
lieves that the board of appeals and the railroad and ware- 
house commission should provide facilities for ascertain- 
ing what per cent of moisture wheat may contain and still 
be safely stored, as only by this method can a fair and just 
grading be established on this class of wheat. In connec- 
tion herewith your committee feels it is its duty to state 
that the testimony before this committee proved that the 
board of appeals had at various times requested the rail- 
road and warehouse commission to furnish it with such 
facilities, but as yet this request has not been granted. 

Ninth. We recommend that more attention be given 
to determining the commercial value by laboratory and 
baking tests, particularly of the newer grades of grain, and 
in establishing grades, and that the benefit of the doubt 
be given the wheat in determining the grade. 

Tenth. We recommend further that the rules of in- 
spection and the practice of the inspection department be 
so revised and changed as to secure on the inspection of 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 109 

grain shipped into the terminal markets a more liberal ana 
fair grade. That the grading of so-called "plugged" cars 
should be changed so as to protect innocent shippers from 
being penalized to the profit of the purchaser in cases where 
poor or inferior wheat may be shipped in the same car; 
and suitable legislation should be enacted that will severely 
punish a shipper who deliberately plugs a car, but tne 
penalty should not work to the benefit of the purchaser or 
that car, but rather to the State. 

Eleventh. We find that the variety of wheat known 
as velvet chaff has been unjustly discriminated against, 
Doth as to its milling and its true commercial value, as 
certified to by millers and exporters testifying before this 
committee, causing great loss to the producers of the State. 
The fact is shown in the testimony that as an export wheat 
this variety will command a premium over No. 1 northern. 
On account of its merits, particularly as to weight, it has 
been used for mixing purposes to lift millions of bushels 
of no-grades into No. 1 and No. 2 northern. Therefore we 
further find that its classification as No. 1 northern was 
justified by the authorized board. 

Price Cards Sent Out. 

But this established grade has been absolutely disre- 
garded by the buyers who have, as above referred to, arbi- 
trarily discriminated against this variety of wheat, and this 
private price-list bureau previously referred to has abso- 
lutely disregarded the established grade on this wheat and 
on the price cards sent out to country points has put this 
wheat in a different class and at a lower price than was 
warranted by the grade established by such authorities. 
This your committee deems unfair. 

Twelve. In view of that fact the testimony adduced 
before your committee proved that millions of bushels of 
low-grade wheat had been raised to higher grades by dry- 
ing, blending, and cleaning, which has resulted in large 
profits to those engaged in the business without correspond- 
ing benefit to the producers; and in view of the further 
fact that this question of blending, cleaning, and drying 
wheat, judging from past experience and attempts along 
this line, is too large for farmers' co-operative associations 
to solve, your committee would therefore recommend that 
suitable legislation be enacted that would enable the State 
to provide facilities for this purpose and that such facili- 
ties be operated by the State at least until such time as 
farmers' co-operative associations have developed to such 
an extent that they will be strong enough to undertake 
this business. 

As to Equity Exchange. 

Thirteenth. Some time after the appointment of this 
committee by the speaker of the house the senate appointed 
a similar committee, ostensibly for the same purpose. This 
senate committee devoted nearly all its time and effort to 
inquiring into the business methods of what is generally 
known as the "Equity Exchange of Minneapolis." In view 
of the fact that this senate committee went into this mat- 



110 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

ter so thoroughly, your committee considered that it would 
be a duplication of effort and a waste of time and money to 
devote any great amount of time to this subject, as the 
senate committee will undoubtedly in due time make its re- 
port to the legislature. The only witnesses in regard to 
these matters that appeared before this committee were 
Messrs. Holt, Bundy, and Schmitt, who appeared in behalf 
of the Voltaire Farmers' Elevator Co., of North Dakota. 
Messrs. Bundy and Schmitt made charges of irregular prac- 
tices on the part of the equity exchange. Mr. Holt testified 
that the business relations between the Voltaire Farmers' 
Elevator Co. and the Equity Exchange had been entirely 
satisfactory to his company and repudiated many of the 
statements made by Bundy and Schmitt, pointing out the 
inconsistencies in their claims. 

Your committee feels that it would not be doing its 
full duty if it should refrain from mentioning that certain 
undesirable features of future trading do not prevail in the 
Duluth Board of Trade to any considerable extent. Your 
committee also found that all switching charges were 
eliminated at Duluth and consequently to that extent the 
expense against grain arriving at that market is lessened. 
Your committee also believes that the market bulletin pub- 
lished and circulated by the various members of the Duluth 
Board of Trade comes nearer to reflecting and quoting the 
exact market conditions than does the Minneapolis so- 
called price-list bureau card. 

Respectfully submitted, 

C. M. BENDIXEN, Chairman, 
MARTIN SCHWARTZ, 
A. F. TEIGEN. 

We concur in the findings of the majority report of the 
committee except in the following respect: 

We do not believe that the grain board of appeals has 
been limited in any respect in doing its duty under the 
present law and therefore dissent from section 7 of the 
report. 

FRANK HOPKINS, 
D. P. O'NEILL. 



APPENDIX II. 

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MINORITY REPORT 
OF THE SENATE GRAIN COMMITTEE. 
We recommend: 

1. That the legislature so far as possible provide for 
full and complete publicity as to the rules, regulations, 
practices and procedure of the Chamber of Commerce. 

2. That legislation be enacted to abolish the switching 
charges now charged to shippers. 

3. Legislation to abolish the rule of the Chamber of 
Commerce which eliminates competition in track bids for 
grain at country points. 

4. The abolition of that rule of the Chamber of Com- 
merce which gives to one member of the Association a 



The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 111 

lien on the membership of another, superior and prior to 
ordinary claims and demands on account of indebtedness 
existing between such members and persons not members 
of the Association. 

5. Legislation which will make the membership of a 
member of the Chamber of Commerce liable to seizure and 
sale upon execution in the same manner as other un- 
exempt property. 

6. Legislation making the number of memberships of 
the Chamber of Commerce unlimited, and enabling an ap- 
plicant for admission to appeal from an adverse decision 
by the board of directors to the vote of the membership at 
large, and thereafter to any court of competent jurisdiction 
in any case where he is denied admission to such associa- 
tion arbitrarily or in bad faith. 

7. Legislation which will permit a member of the 
Chamber of Commerce to sell consigned grain for any 
charge or margin of profit which he sees fit. 

8. That the Railway and Warehouse Commission be 
authorized and directed to take the necessary steps to send 
daily quotations of actual market prices paid for all varie- 
ties of grain at terminal points. 

9. Finally, That legislation be enacted covering the 
entire field pertaining to the handling and marketing of 
the farm products of the state. 

Respectfully submitted, 

0. A. LENDE, 
A. L, HANSON. 

APPENDIX III. 

"FINDINGS" TRANSMITTED TO SENATE REGARDING 
BREWERY CONTROL OF RETAIL LIQUOR TRADE. 

712 out of 814 licensed saloons in St. Paul and Minne- 
apolis either owned or controlled by breweries. 

418 buildings occupied by saloons in St. Paul and Min- 
neapolis owned by breweries; in many other cases brewer- 
ies own fixtures and hold mortgage on property. 

In Minneapolis three brewing companies own 270 
saloon buildings. 

16 brewing companies engaged in wholesale liquor 
business in St. Paul and Minneapolis. 

Agents for brewing companies appear with applicants 
for liquor licenses and practically control granting of li- 
censes. 

From 60 to 75 per cent of liquor licenses in St. Paul 
paid by breweries; over 40 per cent paid in Minneapolis. 

As many as 25 licenses paid for by one brewery com- 
pany's check. 

Many licenses paid indirectly by breweries; saloon- 
keepers required to repay same in weekly installments of 
$20. 

Many contracts between breweries and saloonkeepers 
requiring latter to sell only one kind of beer. 

Brewing companies buy property for "blind pig" pur- 
poses and evil resorts, placing agents in charge of same. 

"Blind pigs" encouraged by breweries, which deposit 



112 The Minnesota Legislature of 1913 

as high as $1,000 to pay possible fines of proprietor. 

As many as 40 cases of beer found in "blind pigs" in 
residence districts. 

Federal liquor licenses found in "blind pigs" paid for 
by breweries. 

Disorderly houses are frequently houses of assignation, 
frequented by 16-year-old girls. 

"Blind pigs" found over saloons in business districts. 

Places raided three or four times and same persons 
were in charge. 

Agent of brewery usually present at prosecution of 
"blind pig" cases. 

Secretary of a brewing company signed 15 to 20 bail 
bonds for persons caught in a raid of disorderly houses. 

Agents and officers have sought to influence and con- 
trol election of aldermen and have successfully dictated 
affairs of city with reference to liquor traffic. 

Saloons located within a block of school buildings, not- 
withstanding protests. 

Brewery-owned saloons tend to increase number of 
saloons, making competition keener and resulting in 
saloonkeepers violating laws by permitting gambling, 
keeping open after hours and permitting women of ques- 
tionable repute to enter their places of business. 

Legislative Remedies Proposed. 

Law to prohibit wholesale liquor dealers either di- 
rectly or indirectly from engaging in retail liquor business. 

Prohibiting breweries from selling liquor to "blind 
pigs." 

Law to empower municipalities with right to regulate 
wholesale as well as retail liquor traffic within their limits. 

Making it unlawful for agents of breweries to assist in 
procuring licenses for saloons. 

Prohibiting brewing companies from leasing property 
for saloon purposes to persons under any other agreement 
than a cash rent basis. 

Making void any leases where breweries stipulate that 
lessees must sell their product. 

Making it unlawful for any one to solicit assistance 
from a brewing company to have himself established in a 
saloon business. 

Violations of proposed laws made gross misdemeanor. 

Penalty— Fine of from $500 to $1,000 for each convic- 
tion. 

JOHN SAUGSTAD, Chairman, 
JAMES P. BOYLE, 
EDWARD RUSTAD. 



(AMALEY PRINTING GOMPANY, ST, PAUL, MINN. 



